The 1960’s saw the birth of the Federal Minimum Wage and from then on the fight has been on. The Republicans see it as socialism run amok. Democrats see it as an unfortunately necessary step to try and ensure workers on the bottom of the pecking order make at least enough to keep from starving. The Right has fought it tooth and nail. And when they are the majority it NEVER goes up. At its current rate of $5.15 an hour it falls embarrassingly short of what is known as the “minimum living wage.” And efforts to increase it languish in D.C., an unfulfilled promise of the newly elected Democratic majority.
The debate about the need for a minimum wage has raged for decades but I think it comes down to a simple truth. Republicans see a forced minimum wage as representing a limit on their freedom to accumulate wealth. What I want to know is why do we assume that a capitalist economy should allow limitless accumulation of wealth. I say that freedom to accumulate limitless wealth amounts to monetary gluttony. And monetary gluttony is why so many must suffer in poverty despite being honest hard working citizens. Therefore my answer to this problem is a maximum wage.
Now I know my conservative fans are going to snap a bolt over this one, but please try to keep an open mind and hear me out. First, we should raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. I know what your going to say, “businesses will have to raise prices or go out of business.” My response to that is, go ahead, raise prices. Only businesses who PAY minimum wage will have to do that, and spreading it out over the whole population will help ease any initial pain. Then we impose a maximum wage of $250,000 a year. I chose that figure because I believe it represents an amount that would allow anyone to live as extravagantly as any person deserves to. Any one who insists they deserve to live beyond that level is a monetary glutton.
For business owner I say if you are making more than $250,000 a year in personal income, then you’ve obviously had help. Therefore, for business owners, income over that level must be shared with the employees, whose efforts contributed to that success. This would have a multiple effect. It would cause an overall increase in income for the working class. It would also remove the motive for personnel reduction, reversing the trend of piling more and more work onto fewer and fewer workers. But the biggest effect I think will be the boost to our economy it will give. Yes, I’ll admit it amounts to monetary redistribution , but how else will we ever achieve equity in this world.
Yes, the sky will no longer be the limit, but then I think it’s primitive to believe it should ever have been. And I think a quarter of a million dollars a year will still be a great incentive to be creative and work hard. The only difference will be that there will be a lot more room at the top.
Now I know my detractors will say I’m crazy and perhaps I am for believing mankind could ever be so generous. But I genuinely think a lot of us seem to act like selfish teenagers, unaware of a larger world. It really disheartens me to think that half of humanity truly believes that the idea of fairly sharing the wealth among all people is somehow a bad idea. I am optimistic that humanity has only scratched the surface of its potential, but we’ll never get there if we don’t do some growing up.
**************************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published every Tuesday and Thursday to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
Human nature being what it is, and reality being what it is, it's best to offer some incentive for the better workers to work harder. In any event, there are simply too many devious, manipulative and shady human beings in this world for such a utopian society to survive. It's reminiscent of church thinking where the church exhorts its followers to be humble and accept their poverty - while the institution wallows in wealth and its priests live high on the hog.
Most importantly most minimum wage workers are marginally useless. We have seen this effect at gas stations where "self service" has replaced all those attendants who used to pump your gas, check the oil and tire pressure, and washed the windshield. We are seeing this currently at the supermarket and bulk discount stores with self service checkout. The net result is that a massive increase in the minimum wage will not lead to higher prices, but more "self service" because less minimum wage people are being hired. The same money gets distributed to less people.
I might argue against the notion of a "minimum living wage," but if there is such a thing it should fall on the people as a whole, not the private sector to create it. Welfare is by nature a government duty because government represents the people as a whole. The arbitrary capping of salary both at a minimum and maximum amount will do little to solve the real problems of both the poor and the rich. So yea, you're crazy, but when you see the other ideas out there you are not alone. There are plenty of wrong answers out there.
I really have a tough time w/ CEO's making 50 million a year while they outsource rank and file jobs overseas.
So.. I do like your idea of a $250,000 cap for overpaid executives. I do think your idea is worthy of discussion. Of course, the devil is in the details.
Micheal, people who believe as you do are SO superior, aren't they? The Khmer Rouge, for instance, slaughtering 2 million in the "killing fields" or the cultural revolution? Maybe we should talk about the forced collectivization in the Soviet Union? Millions of dead for YOUR type of economy, but CAPITALISTS are blood-thirsty pigs. I love it, it's ok if it advances YOUR thinking but people advancing other thinking are "blood thirsty pigs".
Eliminate all tax breaks for these same companies.
Use the profits for both to help subsidize affordable health care for workers.
You'll have to boost the salaries of everybody by a notable percentage because if a high school drop out is earning $30,000 a year, you can bet that the college grad who's earning potential is just $35,000 a year out of school is going to want much more money then that and will have to get more money then that to motivate her to stay in college and get a degree. Hell, if she only makes $5,000 less to start why bother with the expensive college in the first place?
The result would be a drop in the skills of workers and a massive raise in the basic costs of living. Hardly the economic boost you want. China and the USSR had a very similar system of caps and high minimums. It served to discourage education and to drastically limit work opportunities. By the 1980s, both nations were bankrupt and the USSR toppled over in 1991 because of this fact.
When we take a look at what instituting your suggestion would do, the person who makes $250,000 a year may end up living like the person who makes $50,000 or so a year today. Not bad but nothing to really brag about.
As for sharing the wealth, many of the planet's top earners are sharing it by giving it away. Gates and Buffer are just one example of the 50 some billionaires in the Forbes Richest listings who are committing the vast majority of their wealth to a wide variety of causes across the globe from education to AIDS in Africa.
You're missing the point of how economics work in your article.
To Rich Kaye,
Calling me vulgar names and impugning my integrity is nothing but intellectual cowardice and it only serves to rob any argument you have of its credibility. Be a man and let your argument stand on its own.
As for you Devin. Bravo, I beleive $250k is a very good amount. An I would love to get $15 an hour. Keep up the good work
10/10
I think you're the kind of idiot that if he saw Jesus Christ as he dressed and behaved, would call him a free loading bum that hung out with scum.
All you've accomplished is to distract the good folks who have commented with mature arguments pro and con. Your vicious, attack dog style only reveals a deeply disturbed mind. A mind twisted and warped by greed and self loathing. You are to be pitied because your mind has been so stunted from the decay of monetary gluttony that you have become incapable of connecting with humanity. It's the source of your hatred for yourself and everyone you see as inferior to you. I will pray for you Rich because you are a lost soul.
Great to see you chiming in. Yeah, I know I'm aiming way too high, but when your trying to push an elephant up hill, backwards, it's best to aim as high as possible.
1. If employer is paying 14 people $5 per hour, they'll probably cut to 10 people at $7 per hour, expecting the same amount of total work.
2. An alternative is to pay the 14 employees $5 o4 $6 per hour "under the table", so that they end up with the same amount of net pay. They and the employer save on taxes ... government loses out.
3. Comply with the minimum wage (and the increased social security, medicare and unemployment taxes resulting from the increased wage) and employer keeps less money.
4. Comply with the minimum wage (and the increased social security, medicare and unemployment taxes resulting from the increased wage) and pass the cost on to customers.
Which option do you think most employers will choose? I'm guessing #1 or #2.
My question, as a follower of similar beliefs, as you seem to be, how many dissenters would be found guilty in your purges? Keep in mind, purges are a nessasity in your perfect world to keep the likes of me in line.
Monetary gluttons and Pirates and good old fashined robber barons [like Bill Gates who puts out an inferior product, squelches all competition, then donates some charity to help privatize our scools] And then there's Halliburton. And then there are those who think a medical specialist who sees you for 10 minutes to say "how are you" should get $250 plus an hour and be able to blame it on the cost of high technology and his malpractice premiums. Yet, we begrudge paying the garbage hauler a liveable wage -- think what happens when the garbage doesn't get picked up. ooooo, communism.
Rich Kaye -- are you hyperventilating? How about the term "equity" -- surely that's in your vocabulary.
We all slough off occasionally -- even you I bet. But, generally lazy and inept employees should just be FIRED. I'm more generous than most both with money and in giving the benefit of the doubt, but I expect a day's competent work for a day's wage. They don't have to "like" it they just have to "do" it, until such time as they find themselves or their dream job.
Can't say I haven't made mistakes and fallen for the con about wanting to be there until they get their retirement watch [though in some cases that's fine and well worth the extra insurance premium.] It all balances out if you can cut through the crap. Having said that can also say I jolly well do not appreciate the insurance co's, the pharmaceuticals, the health "business" and our filthy robber baron government and their special interest buddies for holding us all up for ransom and for fools.
Fool me once and fool me twice, and that's it!
interesting idea I guess, definitely original too (on gather anyway)