CampusProgress.org | Annika Carlson's Blog: Giving America a raise-- FINALLY

Community Blogs

Post from Annika Carlson's Blog:

Giving America a raise-- FINALLY

By AnnikaCarlson - Apr 6th, 2006 at 2:32 pm EDT

Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog

Comments | Mail to a Friend

Bad? Brilliant?

You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.

With "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" blaring in the background, activists and congressional interns gathered in a park outside the Russell Senate Building to support Senator Kennedy's bill to raise the minimum wage. Kennedy, calling Bush "King George," asked for backing from Congress to raise the national minimum wage from $5.15/hr to $7.25 over the next two years by passing his Fair Minimum Wage Act. Since it's been AGES since Congress raised the minimum wage (ok, ten years, anyway), it's about time someone picked up this issue in earnest. Kennedy's right--it's a "fairness issue" and the working people of America deserve better.

Kennedy and Edwards were joined by a representative from the Ohio minimum wage effort, as well as a student from Howard University whose work on the minimum wage issue with the grassroots group Progressive Maryland got the minimum wage raised in that state.

After Kennedy riled up the crowd, telling us he wanted to hear a crowd "so loud that they hear it down in the White House," he was joined by everyone's favorite former Senator, John Edwards. After the swoons from the middle-aged women in the crowd subsided, Edwards started right in, saying that "The great moral issue of our time is the 37 million Americans waking up in poverty every day." He also referenced the many minimum wage ballot initiatives up in 2006--if Congress can't get it done, he said, "we're going to do it out in the country."

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Eh.

By Superduperficial Apr 8th 2006 at 12:39 am EDT

Link

Re: Eh.

By jr Apr 9th 2006 at 1:53 am EDT

"Something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it."-from that link

BULLLLLLLLLLLLLL-SHIT -my reply

Re: Eh.

By jr Apr 9th 2006 at 1:56 am EDT

By the by, why are you linking to something on an internal decision at Georgetown in a discussion about the national minimum wage, and prefacing the link with an "eh"? If you want to buy into the false premise that a living wage for college service employees counts as a "theft" from charities, go ahead--but that has no bearing on a discussion about how the national minimum wage is stagnant.

Re: Eh.

By Superduperficial Apr 10th 2006 at 1:35 pm EDT

There are links there as to why there's no good reason to have a national minimum wage at all, much less to raise it.

Oh, and something is worth what someone's willing to pay for it.

Re: Eh.

By jr Apr 10th 2006 at 2:24 pm EDT

The only link to an argument as to why a national minimum wage is bad that I found is that it will cause a burden on low-wage employers, who will then have to pass the cost on to consumers. In other words, it's a demand-side redistribution. I'm actually fairly comfortable with that idea. The big factor that the author left out, though, is that without a minimum wage you'd have the risk of tens of millions of workers without any guarantee of a marginally fair wage.

And the idea that the worth of something is simply what someone is willing to pay for it is just lunacy--when was the last time you listened to "Can't Buy Me Love"?

Re: Eh.

By Superduperficial Apr 10th 2006 at 6:36 pm EDT

is that without a minimum wage you'd have the risk of tens of millions of workers without any guarantee of a marginally fair wage.

Your usage of the word 'fair' is incorrect.

Something is worth what someone's willing to pay for it.

If what you want is a social safety net, do it through the EITC or other similar means.

And the idea that the worth of something is simply what someone is willing to pay for it is just lunacy--when was the last time you listened to "Can't Buy Me Love"?

You can buy love, but only in Nevada. Also, poor comparison - the government never forces you to love someone else.

Obviously, when we say "Something is worth..." we're talking about the material somethings - such as labor, first and foremost. A person's labor is a material product, separate from whatever unique-and-beautiful-snowflake value they may have as a human being.

Re: Eh.

By jr Apr 10th 2006 at 8:40 pm EDT

First, labor is not a "material something," or a "material product." It's definitionally a service, not a material good. I can't take home a box of labor, just stuff produced by labor.

Secondly, the government uses my cash to buy stuff I don't want all the time, against my will. (See also: Iraq.)

Third, you can buy lovin' in Nevada, not love. Love takes booze and a minister dressed like Elvis in Nevada.

Fourth, aesthetic and artistic value transcend dollar amounts. You've yet to offer a refutation of that, just repeated the same tripe that worth is determined by auction. Culture cannot be auctioned.

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.