International Political Will

Congress is considering raising minimum wage for the first time in 10 years but not without a fight. The usual suspects are spouting talking points straight from their economics courses that such an increase will signal the end of small businesses. They point to the recent “growth” of the U.S. economy as proof that current policies are working and that any extra costs incurred by business will only hurt U.S. workers.

Anytime someone considers actually compensating American workers, such a typical response is repeated ad nauseam. Anything that might ask business to shoulder some costs brings out the proponents of the free capitalism from the woodwork, making their appearances on network television news and writing their op-ed pieces for major newspapers. They warn of the horrible effects of increasing labor costs for employers by using the same weapon that the Bush administration uses to impose it’s perverted foreign policy - fear.

And like the good lapdogs that the major “liberal media” are, they are quick to make sure that such filth is repeated. No story about raising minimum wage can be aired without doomsday predictions that employers will be forced to raise prices for goods and eliminate jobs to keep costs low.

But the issue isn’t as small as just dealing with minimum wage. This is a simplified version of the same argument used to justify large corporate profits while jobs and wages are eliminated or reduced.

The fact is that worker compensation is always on the front line of fire when corporate boards seek to increase profits. Pensions, health insurance, retirement funds and pay raises are seen as “expendable” in the effort to make more money for investors, while employees are told pensions or health insurance is just a luxury. Eventually workers come to believe that such luxuries are revocable and only provided by the employer out of the goodness of their heart.

Meanwhile, when worker compensation is cut to raise profits, we always hear about the CEO and managers who take their “share of pay cuts.” Nothing like cutting a CEO’s pay by $200,000, right? Makes you feel like even the boss is in the same boat, that everyone is affected by the cuts. But when a CEO’s pay goes from $1.5 million to $1.3 million, it makes little difference. The CEO still has plenty of cash to provide necessities - their retirement, health insurance and dependents - not to mention actual luxuries such as fancy cars, big houses, boats and vacations. At the same time, workers earning $40,000 a year watch their pensions disappear and incur more costs for their health insurance, and their actual purchasing power is severely damaged as a result.

Looking at 2003 statistics, CEO compensation is up 315 percent since 1990 and rising once again - yet during the same time span worker pay has only increased by 48 percent. (Inflation during the same period added 41 percent to cost of living.) Also during the same 13-year span corporate profits shot up 144 percent.

But it gets better (or worse, again depending on your position).

The income gap has been widening exponentially since 1980, putting more wealth into the hands of the richest one percent of Americans and taking wealth away from the middle class. Since 1979, the income of the top one percent of the richest Americans has more than tripled - while the bottom 40 percent have seen only an 11 percent increase. The tax cuts implemented by the Bush administration in 2001 lowered the tax rate on that top percentile of Americans from 37 percent to 33.2 percent, meaning over the next decade their incomes will continue to grow while others’ shrinks.

And what did the 2001 tax breaks mean for average Americans - the ones that Bush repeatedly reminds that the tax cuts have helped the economy and put money back in their hands? The majority of Americans, who make less than $60,000 a year, saw an average of $466 extra in their pockets.

What did the top one percent see? More than $50,000 in extra spending money.

Wages are falling, the income gap is widening, corporations are increasing their profits at the expense of the public, and the pro-business politicians just keep on helping those that drive election financing. What is Bush’s condition for approving the minimum wage increase? Exactly what you’d expect given the history of aiding business at the detriment of American workers - he’ll consider the bill “only if it’s tied to tax cuts to soften the blow for businesses.”

Anyone who suggests that a more equal income distribution system might be a solution is immediately attacked and labeled as a communist and enemy of the state, thereby eliminating debate and silencing those that disagree with the views bought and paid for by large campaign contributions.

If America has learned one thing since September 11, 2001, it’s that framing issues in terms of extreme dichotomies can eliminate any real discussion and allow one distorted worldview to be imposed on others.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS