With gas now approaching $800 per gallon, and your drug dealer
turning the screws just as you’re needing your
end-of-the-quarter fix, you’re probably finding your wallet
uncomfortably empty nowadays.
Sadly, if you’re reading this column you most likely
don’t work for Halliburton or reside in the highest tax
brackets, and the government isn’t interested in giving you
any free money. So, until that kind Nigerian with financial matters
he’d like your help with responds to your e-mail,
you’re stuck working longer hours at your minimum-wage job to
save up for your next beer run.
But fear not, intrepid laborer ““ help is on the way.
Hillary Clinton recently introduced a bill in Congress that would
raise that minimum wage to $7.25 over the next two years.
Furthermore, every time congressional salaries go up, the minimum
wage would increase by an equal percentage.
“Working parents who are struggling to make ends meet and
to build a better life for their children are falling behind.
Minimum-wage workers haven’t had a raise in nearly a decade.
We should raise the federal minimum wage again so that working
parents can lift their children out of poverty,” said Clinton
in a press release, neglecting to mention that she’ll most
likely be running for president in two years. Attaching the federal
minimum wage to Congress’ salary may be a flashy publicity
stunt, but Democrats in Congress ““ specifically House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California ““ have made public
their desire to increase the federal minimum wage if they regain a
majority, and several states have recently increased their minimum
wages.
So Clinton’s bill may or may not be a publicity stunt
““ but sometimes publicity stunts can accidentally contain
terrific ideas. This one definitely does. Consider the numbers: The
minimum wage in California is $6.75, but the federal rate is only
$5.15; fewer than half of the states have minimum wages higher than
the federal limit. Raising the minimum wage is a big deal because,
adjusted for inflation, the current minimum wage is 26 percent
lower than it was in 1979, and the nine years since it’s been
raised constitute one of the longest stretches we’ve ever
gone without raising it, according to the Economic Policy
Institute. To put it simply, prices are skyrocketing, and many
people’s paychecks are staying roughly the same. How many
people? More than 7 million workers make less than $7.25 an hour
““ the equivalent of just over two gallons of gas.
Those who argue against minimum-wage increases ““ when
they’re not arguing that a minimum wage by itself is
inherently socialist and therefore evil and since when is Lenin
running this country and decent people won’t stand for this
and and and ““ argue that employers, faced with a choice
between paying their workers more or firing them all, would choose
the latter. But the Economic Policy Institute found that there was
no systematic job loss following the last two increases in the
minimum wage.
Not only would a minimum-wage increase put more money in the
pockets of those making the bare minimum, but it would likely bump
up other low-paying jobs, too. A student working for Associated
Students UCLA, making around $7.50 an hour, suddenly wouldn’t
be making much more than the federal minimum wage, and that job
would have to pay more to stay attractive to students looking for
employment.
Not to mention that a legion of minimum wage workers would start
providing their service to you with slightly more bounce in their
step ““ and, as a former $5.50 per hour sandwich-maker at
Subway, I’d remind you that this is more important than you
would think. (“My paycheck last week was $10 for 30 hours of
work and this guy in nice loafers just smirked at me. … I’m
putting the diseased lettuce on his Cold Cut Trio. …”)
Clinton’s bill is important for another reason. It ties
the wages of the plebeians here on earth to our representatives in
Washington. Congressmen always brag about how they are simple folk,
just like their constituents; then they hop into jets and
congratulate each other on the piles of money that they’ve
been raising by increasing their salaries and taking the rest of
the month off.
Think how revolutionary it would be to have congressmen legally
tied to their constituents in other such meaningful ways. Citizens
could be entitled to the same illegal perks. They could be allowed
to spend the same percentage of their time bickering with their
co-workers, embezzling, and not doing anything constructive without
getting fired. Every congressman who had constituents serving in
Iraq could be forced to serve themselves until they realized what
they were signing other people up for.
Maybe that’s more farfetched than thinking that my current
paycheck will be able to pay for my next tank of gas, but
it’s enough to almost forget that the real point is to take a
bite, however small, out of poverty in this country. Just watch out
for the lettuce first.
Send Atherton your two cents, if you can still afford it, at
datherton@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.