As of this spring, the real (that is, inflation-adjusted) value of the United States minimum wage has reached a new historic low. The following graph shows the minimum wage, in nominal dollars and 2006 dollars, from 1950 to 2006:
(Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
That’s right: as of this spring, the real value of the minimum wage is lower than it’s been in fifty-six years. As inflation continues to exert its eroding effect, the real value of the minimum wage will continue to fall into deeper historical depths. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan has introduced a bill, S. 14, to bring the minimum wage back up to a more typical historical level. Not one Republican has cosponsored it, and it is languishing in the Senate.
Of the Democratic Party Senators who have toyed with the idea of running for President in 2008, only Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton have lent their support to this bill. Thank you, Senators Boxer and Clinton, for stepping up and showing leadership on this issue. This minimum wage legislation has not garnered the support of possible presidential contenders Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, or Barack Obama. Perhaps Senators Biden, Feingold, Kerry and Obama have just committed an oopsie and forgotten to support the bill for the past fifteen months that it has been before the Senate. Ooopsie! Click on the links to find these senators’ phone numbers, then give them a wake-up call. If they want to lead the nation, these contenders are going to have to display better leadership.
While failing to support minimum wage legislation is bad enough, letting the minimum wage drop while simultaneously making it harder for low-wage workers to declare bankruptcy is just plain mean. Consulting the roll-call record for S. 256 last year’s bankruptcy debacle, I notice that every single Republican U.S. Senator falls in this category. That’s no surprise: we expect Republican politicians to have no regard for America’s minimum-wage workers. But I am disappointed, dismayed, and damned angry to note the following Democratic Senators who clamped down on Americans’ bankruptcy protection while failing to keep the minimum wage from its ongoing fall:
Max Baucus of Montana
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Joseph Biden of Delaware
Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
Robert Byrd of West Virginia
Thomas Carper of Delaware
Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Bill Nelson of Florida
Ben Nelson of Florida
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Ken Salazar of Colorado
If you go to a campaign speech in the future and hear one of these Democratic Senators even try to say that they “support America’s hard-working families” or some similar brand of tripe, let out a rip-roaring, spittle-flying “bullshit!”. Then ask them why they failed not once, but TWICE, to convert their pretty words of support into actual deeds. Shame falls, of course, on the Republicans who all failed us twice; but tears of shameful disappointment fall harder on the Democrats who should know better and who we depend on to represent us better.
Has anyone noticed that more jobs are created when the minimum wage is not driven through the roof? Raise the minimum wage and see how many illegal aliens end up hired instead of American citizens.
Mmmmmmm…no!
Sorry, but in the booming sixties the minimum wage was high, and in the booming nineties the minimum wage decline had been halted and was being sporadically addressed. Compared to the nineties and the sixties, this decade (the whatsies?) is decidedly anemic.
Yes, I think the more proper phrase would be: “Has anyone noticed that the Republican ideological assumptions about the economy turned out to be garbage?”
By the way, the Republicans are damned near as stupid as the Democrats. George W. Bush is useless and he is spending more than your standard Democrat, so I am not 100% sure that we would not be better off with John Kerry. That is, by the way, saying something, as I think that John Kerry is a complete and utter idiot who would run the country into the toilet.
I would have supported Bill Clinton for a third term if he would have been running against Bush and there were no other candidates… since there were options, I voted for Michael Badnarik.
Who’d you vote for? Curious.
Michael Badnarik was my choice. I voted for Harry Browne in the past.
I sense a pattern forming.
Bush ruined America for the forseeable future, in case you’re wondering why there’s no money for social services when you get to be retirement age and you’re living out of a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere. But Bush will have the best of everything, cause he’s “blessed”, see. Enjoy distracting yourself with entertainment and don’t worry about a thing (especially the environment which will become decidedly unfriendly over the next bunch of years).
Who are you talking to, Tom? If it is me, I dislike Bush more than you do, but I still don’t think that social security can or should be saved. I believe that Americans should not be robbed of their money and should, instead, be allowed to invest their own money and not pay taxes on the returns. The funds would be kept in a fund for retirement.
It is not necessary for the government to take my money for social security. Let me keep MY money and I will invest in in a long-term portfolio that will provide my security.
Magician,
There are any number of formerly retired folk who had to come out of retirement and scramble for work when the dot-com bubble burst and their portfolios became worthless. You must have a pretty nice pension plan if you are willing to bet your retirement security on playing the stock market.
I could put my money in long-term accounts with the bank and do better than social security.
People who lost everything during the .com bust didn’t have very diversified portfolios… any money manger worth his commission will make sure that your portfolio is diversified, thus avoiding a total loss over a certain sector.
Magician,
It still sounds too magical for me. You’re not taking cost of living into account. Say you want to retire today and you started buying CD’s at the age of 35 back in 1972 when the minumum wage was 1.87/hour. That means you were making $75 a week before taxes. So you retire today at the age of 65 and your’e going to live, how long? 80 years at least? Is that going to give you enough to live on for 15 more years? I predict the cost of living goes up astronomically, look at the deficit.
The fact that so many seniors are in trouble even WITH social security tells me it can’t be done on the individual level without massive numbers of old people starving; the government has to do it. It’s still a third rail issue.
Jimmy #10:
But a number of money managers were not worth their salt, and a number of people lost big chunks of money.
You do have a point, Jim… a very valid point.
A new AARP poll:
“The AARP poll of 1,500 adults age 30 and older finds a majority of Americans—66 percent—favor keeping Social Security ‘as close to the present system as possible.’ That figure rises to 79 percent among people 60 and older.â€
http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/socialsec/changing_ss.html
The AARP favors social security over private accounts:
“Social Security offers a reliable benefit that increases every year to help meet rising costs of living. It doesn’t matter if you live to be 70 or 107, you can’t outlive your Social Security benefits. The government–not you–bears the risk of ensuring that Social Security benefits get paid.â€
http://www.aarp.org/money/social_security/a2003-03-26-ssprivatization.html