You will actually make more friends supporting these guys than opposing them. (cc photo: Joe Lustri)
The new issue of Time magazine (3/10/14) takes a look at the debate over raising the minimum wage, in a piece by Eliza Gray. But the very first paragraph just doesn’t make much sense:
If you want to make some new friends and just as many enemies, here’s a helpful shortcut: take a position on raising the federal minimum wage. The question of how much workers at the bottom should be paid is fast becoming one of the most divisive issues in Washington. Liberals say a wage hike is the most immediate and fair tool we have to address growing inequality; conservatives argue that such a move would destroy jobs, throwing America’s wobbly recovery off its axis for good. Get ready to hear a lot more about it between now and the November midterms as Democrats and Republicans fight over the merits of an increase, which 76 percent of Americans favor, according to Gallup.
Now, sentence one tells you that you’ll make an equal number of friends and enemies by taking a position on the minimum wage: Liberals say X, but conservatives say Y. But then look at the last sentence, referring to “the merits of an increase, which 76 percent of Americans favor, according to Gallup.”
Hold on—I thought I was going to make as many enemies as friends, no matter which position I took on raising the minimum wage. But raising it is overwhelmingly popular. So wouldn’t I make three times more “enemies” than friends if I opposed it? (Unless Time assumes that “you” are a member of the Washington political elite, among whom the minimum wage is apparently much less popular.)
This is media centrism at its worst, pretending that a worker-friendly policy that most people support is actually “divisive.” This isn’t the first time the minimum wage has been misrepresented this way, and it’s not likely to be the last.
“wouldn’t I make three times more ‘enemies’ than friends if I opposed it?”
No, you’d make three times as many.
The explanation is simple: the only “friends” that count for Time are the VSP in Washington. They don’t care what mere citizens and voters agree on.
Wow, the republicans are on another planet. On this planet, raising pay for a livable wage actually creates jobs.
With a livable wage, people have more money to spend on other things like going to a restaurant, or adding to savings to buy a major purchase., or buying clothing or electronics or books.
When there is not enough money for basics in life; food , shelter, transportation, and health care , then those items be paid from somewhere. If you look at walmart, those items are often paid by the taxpayers.
A livable wage does not implode the economy; however some of those CEO payouts do. : )
if you want to play things forward, then livable wages give more freedom and choice to the workers, and cost the taxpayers less; if you want to play it backward GOP, then we would have to go back a 100 years ago to the last Gilded Age.
Does anyone know what the various jobs at Time pay? it would be nice to see what they think is a livable wage on the different levels of Time. employees.
Of more interest is that if Time had done its homework, they could have told the reader that EVERY SINGLE TIME a minimum wage hike is proposed, “conservatives argue that such a move would destroy jobs, throwing America’s wobbly recovery off its axis for good.” A little more homework (reading a few elementary Economics textbooks), Time could also report that every single time those objections were raised, they were wrong. It feels like we’re having to argue “til the present day” as to whether the Earth is or is not flat. It either is, or it is not. Those objections are either valid, or they are not. Economics textbooks show that they are NOT valid, and yet the news media keep presenting the discussion as if both sides had merit. They don’t. Minimum Wage Hikes are a GOOD THING. The news should be about why those who object can Pretend this is still a controversy (and that anyone believes them.) It’s not a controversy. The objectors’ argument was lost decades ago. But we still have to hear from sore losers – about that, and even about trying to resurrect Laissez-Faire and that Darwin was wrong. It makes me wonder why they haven’t tried resurrecting “The Earth is Flat” and “The Earth is the center of our Solar System.” Why concede anything at all to science, reason and observation? Why indeed can’t we return to the good old days of 1150 CE?
These are the 8 lowest paying jobs: Fast food, dishwashers, cashiers, hosts, amusement part workers, move theater workers, farm workers, personal health care aides.
Time for insular Hollywood to face up to its status as just as bad as Walmart, and McDonald’s when it comes to wages for theater workers.
Don’t excuse Hollywood millionaire directors and actors. They seem charming, but their treatment of theater workers – is the same as fast food, or Walmart. Media seems very reluctant to upset film stars.
Theater workers work every night, weekend and holiday, seldom get enough hours for any benefits, and have all the other same work problems as Wal-mart, McDonald’s, etc. When you talk about Hollywood expand the discussion to how those multi millionaires treat theater workers, who make them all those millions.
Hollywood has done nothing to end the low wages paid theater workers, not only that but they use it to make their top directors and stars even more millions.
http://musea.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/what-would-be-the-biggest-upset-at-the-oscars/
re: gloriana casey – Yes. The proper operation of Capitalism depends on the healthy flow of money through the economy. Higher wages => more flow => healthier economy. Higher wages lead to GROWTH of flow – more commodities consumed and thus produced. But what we are talking about is insuring that workers have enough money to cover BASIC needs, which is the primary problem. We want to hike wages until every worker has DISCRETIONARY INCOME, i.e., more than they need for MERE SURVIVAL, which is the real argument in our economy now. The so-called capitalists have done their best to suck every last discretionary dollar OUT of the pockets of the masses, until every worker, as in 1905, has LESS THAN what they need to survive. And THAT is the actual problem in this country: nobody really wants to play by the actual rules of Capitalism, where increases in productivity must result in wage increases. Instead, the game is “let me get my hands on as much money as I can”, say the so-called capitalists – “and the people can go to hell.” Fine. Once all the money is in the pockets of these so-called capitalists – there isn’t any money left for the ECONOMY TO FUNCTION and PEOPLE SUFFER. The Republicans want to go back to the days of Trusts or worse, Malthus – where either you’re an Owner, or you’re dogfood. There’s “capitalism” and there’s “monopoly capitalism”. Despite being a Socialist I say the former is workable, the latter is not; and the latter, unfortunately, defines the world we actually live in. A real Capitalist would be GLAD to raise his/her worker’s wages because that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to work: higher wages => happier workers => higher productivity => more flow => higher wages!
Imagine the howls were it a serious proposal for a MAXIMUM wage.
@ “Tom Hendricks”, who writes “Don’t excuse Hollywood millionaire directors and actors. They seem charming, but their treatment of theater workers – is the same as fast food, or Walmart. Media seems very reluctant to upset film stars.”
Hollywood directors and actors do not manage the labor of theatre workers. Those businesses are owned by other very large corporations (some of which are not even United States corporations), and not by Hollywood directors and actors. Here is just one business news link to get a glimpse of the nature of such ownerships: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/why-a-chinese-company-wants-to-own-your-local-movie-theater/257464/
Here is a wikipedia entry of listing global theatre chains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cinema_and_movie_theater_chains
Note that none are owned by Hollywood directors or actors. Therefore, they are in no position to “treat” the workers of such enterprises any differently than you or I would. It is difficult to understand what the feelings of Hollywood directors or actors have to do with the discussion of raising the minimum wage of all low-wage workers.
I suspect Ms Gray’s comment about “…make some new friends and just as many enemies…” is just the same old tired cliche-ridden ‘analysis’ we’re used to from the professional pundit class that want to always try to sound las if they’re saying something but don’t want to appear to be taking sides, so they adopt the default false-balance/’he-said-she-said’ that FAIR has documented so well and so often. It’s so habitual and ingrained with them that they often (as here) do it even when they’re OWN article presents major facts that are strongly indicative that one of the sides is almost surely wrong while the other side is most likely right.
wMxzOJJsSXdMCJBAUv 5236
Dumb dumbs. Raising minimum wage raises the cost of living. Forcing all companies to do what a small handful of companies should do will collapse most employers. Dumb America!
David Conner 5 days ago Dumb dumbs. Raising minimum wage raises the cost of living. Forcing all companies to do what a small handful of companies should do will collapse most employers. Dumb America!
.
Are you the brother to M.E.? And the payouts to the CEO’s who take more than a company can make Doesn’t? Because the Wages of the American worker have remained flat, or decreased over the last 40 years, but the Salaries and Payouts to the Corporate Lords and Masters haven’t. Yet the cost of living continues to increase; so WHO in reality, is really responsible for the increase in the cost of living.
If the minimum wages go up all over (and please note the Corporate God have also set out decrees on how to avoid paying even in the minimum wage) it becomes part of the “Cost of doing Business”. When the Corporate Lords and Master increase their incomes by the obscene amounts of the last 20 years, it becomes a burden on the business’ and it’s community.
Please come join us in the 21st century, not the 20th, of which your 1950’s view of the world is, shall we say, outdated.