Barack Obama’s State of the Union call for raising the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour could be called a lot of things: a nonstarter, given the Republican opposition; a step backwards, since he wanted to raise it to $9.50 in 2008; or a modest step in the right direction.
The point is that what we call things matters, which occurred to me as I read this piece in the New York Times this morning (2/13/13):
The proposal directly addresses the country’s yawning levels of income inequality, which the White House has tried to reduce with targeted tax credits, a major expansion of health insurance, education and other proposals. But it is sure to be politically divisive, especially given the weakness of the recovery and the continued high levels of joblessness.
It’s important to step back and figure out what “divisive” means here. As Annie Lowrey reports, Republicans and corporate interests are opposed to this idea, and there is some research that suggests that raising the wage floor might hurt more than it helps (as well as research that says the opposite; I guess we call it a tie?).
But what do the American people say about this idea? They overwhelmingly support the concept of paying people at the bottom of the wage scale more–some 70 percent, according to one survey.
We went through something like this with the debate over the healthcare “public option,” which media treated as a similar kind of “risk,” cheering the “pragmatism” of politicians who worked against the wishes of the majority of the public.
It would be more sensible to talk about how risky and divisive it is for politicians to oppose raising the minimum wage–a policy that’s causing direct hardship to millions, and is not even popular in the abstract among the greater population. But that’s almost unthinkable in corporate media.
It does matter what we call things
And what the words we use mean.
By a “minimum” wage, we’re referring to the lowest pay one can receive
And not the lowest pay sufficient to cover essential expenses.
Now, you can’t call that a “living” wage
But the fact that we’re not even talking about that shows just how devolved the discussion has become
And how our “representatives” offer us crumbs, and how we settle for that
When we should demand the keys to the bakery.
@Doug Latimer,
The time is coming.
“You say you want a(n) evolution, well all-right”
paraphrasing the Beatles of yore.
Demanding the keys from all those corporations lost to
the GREED DEMON will come. I hope!
Count me in.
We need the “guilt” the “too big to fail” (bailed-out) Wall Streeters and avaricious corporations into “self-dismantling.” We need to shame the greedy back into humanity.
Decoded – Tricky Talk about what’s saving/ruining the country
Giving money to rich people will save the country.
Giving money to poor people will ruin it.
Sounds silly doesn’t it? But let’s put it in different language.
Giving money to rich people TAX BREAKS will save the country MAKE JOBS
Giving money to poor people ENTITLEMENTS will ruin the county DEFICITS.
Don’t let people fool you. Welfare for the rich is the same as welfare for the poor. Right now most of government welfare goes to the rich, not the poor.
Its divisive because the people are on one side and the elites on the other.