When Sherrod Brown came to Toledo several months ago and I heard him speak, a part of what he focused on was the need to get enough signatures to get the constitutional amendment on the Ohio minimum wage on the ballot for November 7th. At the time, Ohio and Kansas I believe were the only two states that had a minimum wage that was below the Federal minimum wage.
Now of course the Ohio House and Senate have passed a bill that will take effect in June that will raise the Ohio minimum wage to the same as the Federal one. The constitutional amendment that is still in the process of gaining signatures (last report they had a little under half of the necessary 322,899 signatures with an August 7 deadline for filing); it would change the Ohio minimum wage to above the Federal one to:
$6.85 per hour beginning January 1, 2007 and provide that effective the first day of January thereafter the minimum wage rate would be increased based on the rate of inflation according to the Consumer Price Index or its successor index for all urban wage earners and clerical workers rounded to nearest five cents.
Here's where the debate comes in. It's been stated that between 92,000 to 100,000 Ohioans currently earn under the Federal minimum wage. With or without this constitutional amendment making it on the ballot in November that will change in June. What's not clear is how many actually earn $5.15 an hour. The Policy Matters report is being used everywhere as a justification for this and even being quoted by candidates/politicians/media it states:
That proposal (meaning the proposed constitutional amendment) would raise wages for about 719,000 Ohio workers, 14 percent of the state's workforce. Directly affected are 297,000 workers who currently earn less than $6.85. An additional 423,000 are indirectly affected already earning at least $6.85 but likely to still get a modest wage increase as employers adjust pay scales to accommodate raises for minimum wage employees.
The above statement is also not clear, if 297,000 workers are directly affected and they acknowledge that the additional are "likely to get a modest increase" trying to state the first sentence as That proposal would raise wages for about 719,000 Ohio workers, 14 percent of the state's workforce is deceptive. (not to mention according to my math 297,000 + 423,000 = 720,000)
How many of those 297,000 workers earn exactly the Federal minimum wage? I remember when the Federal minimum wage went up to $5.15. I was working part time as a cashier at a gas station and was earning the Federal minimum wage of 4.75 an hour. You earned that your first 60 days then were eligible for a merit raise. Well guess what, no merit raise for me because everyone's hourly went up to $5.15. If you were lucky enough to have gotten your merit raise and earned over $5.15? You didn't get an additional raise. Nor is that business the only one who did it that way.
Then further in the report we come to this:
All in all, about 14 percent of Ohio workers can expect to see a raise if the minimum wage is increased. Those who will be directly affected that is those earning under $6.85 prior to the increase will see larger raises, about 80 cents an hour on average. Those already earning over the new minimum when it is imposed will, on average, get an estimated raise of about 26 cents an hour. Considering all affected workers together, the average affected worker was earning $6.82 an hour last year, would have been earning $7.08 by 2007 due to nominal wage growth, but can expect to instead earn $7.56, a 48 cent raise on average.
The average affected worker was earning $6.82 an hour? That would mean all this consititutional amendment is really promising them is a 3 cent an hour raise. All the rest as far as what could "potentially" happen is just that, potential.
I don't like deceptive marketing no matter who does it, and especially not for a constitutional amendment. Let's be blunt, this really honestly only can be promised to be a raise for the 297,000 people who earn under 6.85 an hour. If you take the time to read the pdf that is the bottom line.
I want honesty, is that too much to ask? Yes, lots of us were naive enough to think that the Ohio lottery was really going to make a huge contribution to our local schools, and the various other past marketing ploys that have been used to either promote for or against a constitutional amendement. I'm tired of "maybe", "possibly", "potentially", give it to me straight give it to those people who are earning under $6.85 an hour it straight too, don't promise them an 80 cents on average raise when the real bottom line truth is the only raise they are guaranteed without a union contract tied to the minimum wage is the difference between what they currently make and $6.85 an hour, which for the average number of them could be as little as three cents. Now they could very well want that as a raise, I'm not saying they shouldn't have that as a raise, but at least treat us like we are intelligent enough to see what is fact versus what is possible. If you make $6.86 an hour, legally if this constitutional amendment passes? You could still make $6.86 an hour you are not guaranteed a raise.
If people want this on the November ballot? Good for them, if it passes in November? That's fine too, but promote this honestly...
Keeping Your Belongings Safe Through Storms
-
Years ago almost every house was built with some sort of shutter, whether
designed as storm shutters or for security. Granted, most windows during
those d...
13 years ago
14 comments:
There ya go being logical when it involves politicians Lisa :-)
It's not about the minimum wage as much as it is about how a politician is to be perceived by a naive voting public.
I like to look at this as political cotton candy, very little substance, much fluff, and copious amounts of political hot air. . .
Who would be against raising the minimum wage? It seems like the "christian" thing to do. Surely preachers in the pulpit each Sunday preach on 'helping the poor.' Jesus was described as an itinerant preacher himself.
Of course, that 'feel-good' Sunday morning stuff quickly fades away as folks enter their business offices on Monday morning.
First, LD, the "christian" thing to do, as you suggest, is to help the poor YOURSELF - not rely upon any form of government to do it for you.
As for who would be against raising the minimum wage - how much is enough when it comes to mandating what value employers place on their employees? Why stop at $7 or $8 per hour? Why not become completely socialistic and just take everyone's earnings and redistribute it as policitians see fit?
While I'm being a bit sarcastic, the argument for increasing minimum wage never ends - no matter how high it is, there will always be someone who says it isn't enough.
Lisa - great article. I've looked at the Policy Matters report and then I looked at Policy Matters because I had many of the same concerns. Policy Matters is primarly union-driven, according to the board members and what little I could find about their finances (so I reserve the right to clarify this if more of their financial data becomes available to show otherwise).
So it should come as no surprise that they're publishing a report which shows that increasing the minimum wage is good for the economy.
Additionally, I had a serious issue with one of the news reports from Gongwer's which said:
Sen. Minority Leader C.J. Prentiss (D-Cleveland), a major supporter of the fall ballot proposal to hike the minimum wage to $6.85 an hour, joined the center’s John Podesta, Policy Matters’ Amy Hanauer and small business owners in announcing the findings.
“This study shows once again that raising the minimum wage is a win-win situation for this state,” the lawmaker said. “It also breaks the myth that small businesses would be hurt by a minimum wage increase.”
Sen. Prentiss is the president of Policy Matters, but that was never mentioned in the story.
Finally, one glaring omission is the number of individuals who legally make less than the minimum wage. Often, the comment is "x number of people who earn minimum wage OR LESS."
Many of those individuals will NOT see an increase in their wages simply because the state changes its law. That's never brought into the equation and it's the vast majority of the number they constantly refer to.
Thank, Lisa, for insisting upon honesty in all things.
Toledo recently set a dollar amount as what the "living wage" was. So I think we could all agree given that minimum wage cannot be considered even close to a living wage. Nor would it still be a living wage at $6.85. Now what would happen if we demanded that the minimum wage be a "living wage"? Sounds great in theory but basic econmics tells you that the higher salary has to come from somewhere and most often it comes from additional higher prices.
So it's the actual buying power that should be at least part of the issue. If I get an 25 cent an hour raise and the cost of most of the items I purchase increases beyond my raise? I am actually behind not ahead as far as purchasing power.
An interesting site - that I cannot attest to being totally accurate but it's been said to me by those much more economically talented that it is:
How much is that worth today
Maggie, valid point about those who earn less. People could still earn less under the current amendement as well, certain farm jobs, those under 16, those who are mentally handicapped, those who work for family members and I believe few more. Yet it's not clear if they are listed in the 297,000 if they are? Makes the numbers even less accurate because those people will not see an increase in their wages.
That's why I'd like to see clear concise numbers and I really think that would help everyone.
Maggie Thurber said...
First, LD, the "christian" thing to do, as you suggest, is to help the poor YOURSELF - not rely upon any form of government to do it for you.
Hmmm. So then you don't believe that our government has any business in the wage-control agenda?
If so, then you probably believe that the government ought to not get involved in any social matters?
Reminds me of that [cough, cough] 'compassionate conservative' tag that Bush threw around during his 2000 campaign.
I guess the question is: what role does the government have in this line from the Preamble: ' to promote the general welfare?'
Maggie, as the good Republican that you are, I realize that you like to see 'less government' in our lives. My question asks: 'is there a time and place for more government in our lives?'
LD - really good question.
I'll be honest and say I don't know. I have yet to find an example where MORE government was a good solution - primarily because there are so few things that government does do well.
As for the "general welfare," I'd suggest this: http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm
When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”
James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”
...
The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
...
Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”
Maggie- I appreciate your honesty.
It seems to me that 'the common good' ought to be at the heart of all democracies because, after all, the alternatives are ugly.
The question, I suppose, is degree. How much common good is right?
Take an example from child-raising: there are many parents who 'parent' from both extremes, but the tough place to be an effective parent is in the middle.
Could we compare governing to this model? If so, the 'middle' needs to be defined.
Take this continuum for example:
1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6------7
A smoothly flowing continuum can be constructed to represent the differing levels of a government's involvement in the lives of its citzens, with 4 as center and 1 most, 7 least government involvement.
I suppose that your philosophy occupies the 4-5-6-7 positions while mine the 1-2-3-4 positions.
A similar smooth 1-7 continuum could be constructed using raw income numbers for our citizens, the lowest income numbers at 1, highest at 7.
However, the continuum no longer exists if household numbers and income are combined.
Another data model must be chosen to represent these data. I'll attempt to paint a verbal description:
The familiar line graph can be used with the x-axis [bottom] representing income, least left to most; the y-axis [side] representing numbers of family units, bottom lowest.
Thus '0' is at the left where x crosses y.
This model clearly has no representative middle, no 'average' point. Rather, the line begins [left] high and very slowly slopes downward as income rises. Then suddenly, it falls sharply to just above zero and maintains this right progression through the remaining numbers.
With this very demonstrative model of the unequal income distribution of our nation, our 1-7 governance continuum fails to equally represent the needs of the citizens, as there is clearly a large mass at the 1 position and very few at 7.
What does this say of 'the common good?' as well as 'governing from the center?'
LD - I can follow the words, but don't get the actual charting where number of family units comes in to play...
that confusion aside, you continue to raise good questions regarding the "common good" and I appreciate the civil discussion with you...
thanks to Lisa for raising the issue and allowing us to go off on a tangent!
maggie-
Here's another way of looking at the IRS data.
In 2003 there were 130,000,000 'households' returning their 1040's.
Beginning at 'no income' through $45,000 income, already 108,000,000 households were counted.
Thus, the 22,000,000 households remaining to count had incomes of +$45,000.
In fact, the midpoint of 130 million is 65 million and that number of households stood for 'no income' through $20,000.
Thus half of the households reporting income were at $20,000 or lower. it would seem then that 'the common good' lies in the lower economic sector of our nation.
Which begs the question: Why did Congress pass the $70,000,000,000 capital gains tax cut? The common good is not found in these folks.
LD - thanks for the additional example.
I guess, like so many things, how you apply such a concept of "common good" is where most people begin to differ. We both pretty much agree that working toward the common good is a good thing. How we do such work and how we apply such a concept is where the philosophical disagreements begin.
Would it be fair to say that you look at the results of the actions? It seems to me that you may look at what the majority of people have (as in your example of income).
I seem to be focusing on the opportunity or ability to get (as in the income levels).
In one sense, I've heard this described as "equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome." Could it be that simple?
However, I go back to the piece I quoted earlier regarding the "general welfare" or "common good"...
The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
...
Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”
How do we adhere to not favoring special interest groups or classes of people - neither the majority nor the minority? If Congress can tell us what's good for us in one area - where do they stop?
If Congress can tell us what's good for us in one area - where do they stop?
"The buck stops here." - Harry Truman, on his desk in the Oval Office.
Bush has yet to veto a single bill. He ought to get a plaque stating, "The buck flows here."
Take that $70,000,000,000 capital gains tax cut that Congress passed and Bush signed.
The Common Good? Hardly. Not many of our 250,000,000 citizens behefited from that. In fact, there will be $70 billion LESS in the Treasury to spend on "the common Good."
Just think of how many US highways and bridges could have been reparied with that money. How many more dollars could have been allocated to school districts through the NCLB Act? How many more medical clinics could have been staffed throughout Appalachia and the rural South with that money.
The common good was not only ill served; it was raped.
LD - there may be less in the federal treasury to spend on the common good, but there will more money in the pockets of individuals (please don't start about how this only benefits the rich - that's another topic for another day) who, being free, self-responsible individuals, are better capable of making decisions about how to spend that money than any government ever would be...
And I'm not happy about Bush not vetoing some of those spending bills either...
Post a Comment