Cook County asks 5 million residents whether to raise the minimum wage to $7.50
I haven't seen this reported elsewhere (I first heard about it from the Blagojevich campaign), and I think it's very smart politics: the Cook County Board has placed an advisory referendum on the November ballot asking voters if they want to raise the minimum wage from $6.50 to $7.50 an hour.
One of the Democrats' signature issues in 2002 and in the 2003 General Assembly was raising the minimum wage past the federal minimum of $5.15 (that's $10,300.00 annual pre-tax income, and if that's not a poverty-wage, I'm not sure what is) to $6.50 an hour. It has been a triumph for the state and I'm sure has resulted in a large influx of wealth into our state as the extra $2,000 in purchasing power that mininum wage workers enjoy has been multiplied throughout our economy, not to mention the upward pressure on wages it has brought to hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Upward pressure on wages -- what a concept!
It's especially appropriate after Labor Day weekend (and thank you to labor unions for giving me the power to have the day off on Monday -- what a concept it must have been 80 years ago to demand a day off from work to honor labor!) the unending need to shift power to low-income workers both because it's the right thing to do and because it's good for our economy.
I've heard enough about the 'job-killing' minimum wage and I don't buy it. There isn't evidence to support the argument. And if opponents of a decent minimum wage are serious, then they should be for lowering the minimum wage to, say, $1 an hour. Or we can match the Chinese and go to $1 per day. That's the logic. If you oppose raising the minimum wage because it somehow impoverishes the working poor, then you are for lowering the minimum wage, because *that's* really going to bring jobs to those that need them!
It's funny: those who think that paying poor people less will mean they get more money also think that cutting taxes will mean the goverment will get more money too. I wonder if those people apply the concept to their own lives and tell their bosses that they don't want a raise, because they want to make more money. Oh wait: they probably are the bosses.....
I think this is exclusively a practical question. At some point (probably at the lowest 20% of income -- just shy of $10/hour, around the poverty level), there will be fewer jobs created. But there's a lot of wiggle room before that point, and the benefits that come to Illinois workers (and thus, the Illinois economy from all that new income, often paid by out-of-state owners of publicly-traded corporations) outweigh the costs of the relatively few lost jobs.
I don't know what other premise anyone could accept besides a ruthlessly pragmatic assessment to determine their support or opposition to a minimum wage increase. If it's *ideological*, then please. That's empty. The only ideological position that makes any sense is to abolish the minimum wage (and thus, to be for Chinese wages of $1 per day). What's the logical reason to oppose a $7.50 minimum wage and reluctantly support a $5.15 minimum wage? If it's a border question (gas stations and hot dog shops are all going to move to Indiana and Kentucky!) then it's really a pragmatic assessment: how many jobs will Illinois really lose to the poverty-wage states on our borders versus how much more income will flow to Illinois low-income workers?
Since we have no evidence that firmly supports either proposition (and if anyone's got some, I'd like to read it -- applied only that documents actual job losses, theoretical constructs don't count), there's no pragmatic reason to support the lower wage over the higher wage.
Anyway, I think it's a smart issue to draw attention to for the Blagojevich campaign and the Democratic Party, and if I were Judy Baar Topinka, I'd be promising to support a minimum wage increase to $7.50 sooner rather than later. Whoever figured out to ask the County Board to put this on the ballot should get a raise.
27 comments:
Why not $10 an hour?
Or why not tinker with EITC a little more i.e. McGovern style guranteed min income instead of pean wages?
From Sat's WSJ on Incomes and Politics,
One sure sign that the economy is doing well is when the left revives that old political warhorse, inequality. With GDP growth of nearly 4% for three years running and a jobless rate of 4.7%, it's their last economic resort in an election year. But when you look at the actual evidence, the inequality campaign also proves to be trumped up.
The Treasury Department will soon release the latest IRS data on who paid how much in taxes in America through 2004. We've had an early look at the numbers, and anyone who reads the front pages of our leading dailies may be surprised to learn that the Bush years compare very well by tax and income equality to the sainted Clinton era.
First, the new data show that the bottom 50% of Americans in income--U.S. households with an income below the median of $44,389--paid a smaller share of total income taxes in 2004 (3.3%) than in Bill Clinton's last year in office (3.9%). That 3.3% is the lowest share of total income taxes paid by the bottom half of earners in at least 30 years, and probably ever. The majority of American families with an income below $40,000 pay no income tax at all today, and many of them also get a welfare subsidy from the Earned Income Tax Credit that effectively offsets much of what they pay in payroll taxes.
Glad to see that you are one of the people who won life's lottery and have a job where you get Labor Day off.
Many people have not. It's really poor form to gloat, you know....
Also...I get paid $7.50 an hour because I have more skills than an entry level employee. If they get a bump to $7.50 an hour, shouldn't I automatically get a raise to $8.50 an hour?
What law is going to help *me*? Are you going to champion a law to make my pay automatically be $8.50 an hour?
Hey, we can't afford it OK? This ain't Russia, ok? let them eat cake,ok?
Bill,
Why not reduce it to $1.00, or abolish it altogether?
Would you prefer that system?
Anon, 6:34:
That is the likely result. The minimum wage pushes all other wages up.
So, if the majority says that a minority (business owners) must do their bidding, what is available to check the tyranny of the majority? Why not force everyone living in Park Ridge to pay 100% taxes, and no one else pays any taxes? Perhaps everyone in Niles should sell their house and give the proceeds to the poor. What is the difference? If a majority can tyrannize a minority via ballots or otherwise, our democracy is no better than mob rule.
JBP
There is no reason why an American or illegal immigrant in this country, which gives do lavishly to the over-qualified and competant, should not make $ 795.46 an hour. A rising tide raises all boats, yachts & etc. and they should have universal health coverage, a four day week - no a four hour week, no school prayer free breakfasts, and NASCAR time off. My God Man - think of the children. Mobilize!
Why not reduce it to $1.00, or abolish it altogether?
Would you prefer that system?
That works. I'd rather use EITC to set a income floor for households.
When will Cook County put a referendum on the ballot to ask voters if government should stop taxing poor people? You know, something they can do "to help the little guy" without holding guns to small business owners' heads.
Where is the logic in Cook County taking poor people's money and giving it to rich people?
And since any business that pays less than $7.50 an hour before taxes must be evil (like the Chinese), why doesn't Cook County just seize those businesses. The Cook County Board would do a much better job running non-evil businesses.
This is a complete joke and all sense of logic goes out the window until Chicago/Cook Democrats start offering 100% tax rebates to poor people. Property tax, sales tax, food tax, smoke tax, utilities tax, phone tax, income tax, and all taxes should be removed from poor people.
Until that happens, proposals like this are just empty political rhetoric trying to make other people look more evil (like the Chinese).
Funny thing though, the Chinese don't tax those $1/day wages as much as Illinois Democrats would. So doesn't the logic prove that anyone who supports taxing the poor is more evil than the Chinese?
You want to help the poor? First thing to do is stop taking their money. Then we can talk about holding a gun to small business owners' heads without being such a huge hypocrite.
Well said Jeff
That is the likely result. The minimum wage pushes all other wages up.
It abolish jobs... it replaces humans with machines... read up on the coming retail scanning technology.
What is the experience of countries without a minimum wage?
How about Mexico. How are wages there?
China? What kind of standards of living do they have?
Maybe that is what people like Baar and Triggi would prefer.
Skeeter,
I prefer the United States as do the many folks from Mexico and China who risk their lives to get here...
One of the big problems with the Labor movemen is they haven't gone global like corporations.
Read Lappin on Global Trade Unions.
Interesting point, Bill.
You claim to like America and the standard of living here, but not the laws and workplace regulations that got us that standard of living.
I assume after your friends like Denny Hastert do their best to get rid of the minimum wage, they are next going to attack OSHA and the mine safety regulations? After all, why should The Government interfere in those decisions? Right, Bill? If people are willing to work in mine without adequate air flow, why should the government step in? Let the free market handle it. Is that your solution?
Jeff - you are completely missing the point.
The reason we need to pass this law is so that all the poor people can *pay* those taxes...the last thing the county needs is poor people not smoking/driving/drinking/gambling becuase they can't afford it due to the taxes on it.
Yes I say raise the wage. The county needs to continue the revenue streams it already has.
Very interesting concept. Laws and workplace regulations gave us our standard of living. Umm, they did no such thing, but nice try. Our semi-free market gave us our standard of living, including unions. Funny how the bigger government gets and the higher our taxes, the less our standard of living increases. Not much at all to do with workplace laws and regulations actually.
And you do realize that unions and labor are part of the free market don't you? Nothing should stop a union from demanding adequate air flow in mines. It's also very interesting that as government laws and regulations increase, union membership decreases.
Minimum wage laws do not drive up wages. Competition drives up wages, specifically when unemployment is lower. Education levels needed to perform jobs drives wages up. Marketplace success drives wages up. Minimum wage is NOT suppose to be a "living wage" it's a starting wage. Huge difference.
If we want to improve "living wages" and standard of living, (after we let the poor keep the money they earn), we need to end the strangehold the unions have on our education system. You see if a Chicago government school teacher had the idea to put this referendum on the ballot, the Chicago teacher's union would say that teacher shouldn't get a raise unless all teachers get a raise in the contract.
People shouldn't be rewarded or have their pay based on their performance and coming up with good ideas. All people should be paid the same based on seniority no matter what. At least, that's how Chicago Democrats seem to want it since I didn't hear a single one of them say a word when the Chicago teacher's union rejected additional federal funds to help pay good teachers based on performance.
Ah yes, anonymous, the real motive comes out. Raise the minimum wage in Chicago and Chicago thinks it will collect more taxes from the still poor people. Hasn't the population of Chicago been decreasing the past two decades? Hmmm.
I'd be interested to know how many people who live and work in Chicago make less than $7.50 an hour now and what those jobs are. I doubt it is many at all in the private sector. The market has already bumped up Chicago wages well past minimum wage for the vast majority of us. The few that will get a raise because of this will just do less to improve their employment skills cause why should they now?
Trigg,
Let me get an answer from you:
Assuming the workers are not unionized, you do not believe that the government should step in with requirements for mine safety?
You also believe that OSHA should be abolished?
Is that really your position?
If OSHA was abolished Skeeter, the insurance industry would be the new OHSA.
No mine would be viable without worker's comp insurance. The premiums the mine would pay would be based on the risk the mine was incurring on its workers. This kind of stuff happens every day.
It's called 'market forces'
Getting rid of OSHA isn't the first thing I'd do, but yes, I can envision a much better overall workplace environment in the US even if we didn't have a federal government trying to regulate things from DC it knows nothing about. Let the states, better yet, the counties regulate it if needed. Unions would be stronger without OSHA and probably would be the better choice at continuing to improve workplace environments.
I know you want people to believe that we are evil for even thinking about abolishing OSHA cause that means we just want all workers in horrible conditions with no recourse. Doesn't work like that. Get rid of OSHA so we can have a better solution that improves things even more, a lot more.
And get rid of laws protecting companies/owners from lawsuits of harmed employees. Insurance companies would indeed become the force behind prevention and enforcement.
OSHA...
...isn't that the agency that does warrentless searches of mines?
Anon 6:07:
Worker's comp?
That's a statute also.
I assume that those on the right want to abolish that workplace restriction.
It is the free market, right? Some employers can provide it and other can choose not to. Isn't that the way of the right?
Yes Skeeter,
Worker's comp can easily be abolished without having a significant effect on safety. There are all sorts of private insurance companies that would be glad to sell worker's comp insurance.
You are correct, a free market gives discretion to workers and business owners as to what benefits are provided.
JBP
Danbo,
What will your portly senate patron do when his sponsors go down in Federal indcitments?????
Can you say SENATOR GARZA?
JB,
Your last post was just flat stupid.
Workers Comp. insurance exists only because of a worker's compensation statute.
Please enlighten me: Why should a company sell insurnance for a category of loss that would no longer exist?
Post a Comment