|
Honestly, if this had been done decades ago, say, in 1968 when the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, was over 8 dollars/hour, the highest it ever was before inflation started eating it away, we wouldn't be pressed with such a fundamental issue of how much the least among us should be paid.
There are, in my mind, two competing standards which we could peg the minimum wage to. The first being to peg it to inflation so that it floats upward with inflation. This has the effect of essentially ensuring that the value of an hour's work for the poorest workers does not decrease but remains constant in value. I am operating on the assumption that inflation drives wages, and if we look at the last 9 years, it really has (wages have not kept up with inflation, so the argument that wages drive inflation doesn't strike me as true, especially in the last six years), and I operate on the assumption that the yearly decrease in the value of each individual dollar is due 90 percent to fractional reserve banking, not the wages of workers.
The other standard, of course, is to peg it to salary increases that Congress loves to give itself. The logic being that if the highest representatives and the most powerful senators in the land should get a raise, then so too should the humblest of workers among us. This can cut both ways. If Congress gets a little too greedy, they will give themselves raises at a rate higher than the rate of inflation. This would actually have the effect of increasing the wages of the lowest workers above and beyond the rate of inflation. This might end up being good for the economy, as it translates into increased purchasing power, increased consumer confidence, which would lead to increased sales, which means firms would need to hire more workers to deal with increased demand for goods and services, which means lower unemployment.
However, if, for example, the Repubs gain control in the future (it's a statistical liklihood the longer the timeframe), they are likely not to give themselves any raises at all if it means they can spite the workers. Afterall, if you're making 150,000+ in yearly salary for being a Congressman, it's not going to hurt if you don't give yourself a raise for 10 years or even longer (but it most certainly hurts the lowest paid workers), especially since most Congressmen derive most of their income outside of office anyway (like with stocks and dividends). That might end up doing the exact opposite to the economy as inflation automatically eats up the purchasing power of workers as a result, which translates into a more stagnant economy when one looks at it, like what we have now where only a few are really benefitting while those in the middle barely hold ground and the poorest slip further behind.
So what will the Dems do when they assume power in both chambers of Congress?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
