Rampant income and economic inequality is the most serious challenge we face as a Commonwealth. This morning, single parents working full time minimum wage jobs woke up to earn $8 an hour.
To fight income inequality, we need to raise the minimum wage now, without any cuts to unemployment benefits.
This challenge is urgent, and Massachusetts workers want to see elected officials act immediately, not complicate the issue by cutting unemployment insurance benefits – a form of critical economic relief our citizens so urgently need.
I will oppose any bill to cut these benefits.
The working poor, who have not seen a wage increase since 2008, face immediate needs to feed their families, pay rent, and get to work.
That’s why I’m calling on the House to join the Senate and pass a bill increasing the minimum wage to $11 an hour by 2016. No one who works full time should have to live in poverty.
So let’s ensure that we start this new year by providing Massachusetts workers with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Let’s not play politics when it comes to the economic fairness and security of our workers and their families.
I can see how some delay makes sense, but why not 2015?
There is a 2015 increase, just not all the way up to $11 right away. If I’m not mistaken the bill that passed the Senate raises the MW immediately to $9, then to $10 on Jan. 1, 2015, then to $11 on Jan. 1, 2016.
…but they are both firmly in the category of keeping people financially afloat AND being economically stimulative. To discuss them together, I think, is an attempt to present a broader theme of what Democrats should stand for.
The proposal, floated by Speaker DeLeo and others, has been to OK a hike in the minimum wage on condition that we simultaneously “reform” the unemployment system. Now, certainly the unemployment system could be improved – but cutting unemployment benefits would be a mistake IMHO.
…Grossman’s way of saying he does not favor the proposed tradeoff. He discusses earned sicktime in his campaign as well, which is another factor of the same theme.
one of the unemployment benefits cuts being discussed and why it’s a really bad idea.
(But wait, there’s even more! A progressive way to reform UI.)
First link I sent was wrong. Here’s the right one. Very sorry.
There isn’t any “appears” to me — Steve Grossman is explicitly opposing Mr. DeLeo’s wrong-headed linkage of the two.
…and I would posit that $11 is not a living wage in today’s world. People who earn the minimum wage need food stamps, Medicaid and other forms of public assistance to survive. In effect, the taxpayers end up subsidizing corporate profits, and that needs to change.
In 1795, Thomas Paine suggested that all citizens should receive a basic income grant from the government, funded by a 10% tax on income. We could do this today – make the amount the same as the average Social Security benefit, then eliminate SS, welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc, and open up Medicare to everyone so that people have healthcare as well. If a person is in prison, their basic income stipend is used to fund the prison. It reduces bureaucratic overhead because there can be no fraud – every citizen gets the same amount of money, so the only fraud is when someone claims to be a citizen but is not.
It’s an interesting idea to say the least – read more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
And I think it’s an interesting area where libertarian faith in the individual to spend their money better than the state intersects with social democracy’s inherently egalitarian universal benefits. Let’s see how Switzerland works, but I definitely want this to be on the table. It’s how we can expand the New Deal and update it for a globalized service economy.
Christopher and John001 are both absolutely correct (as is Grossman). We have got to look at the way we taxpayers are subsidizing corporate profits. It is both fair and reasonable to expect employers to pay a reasonable wage, to price their goods and services accordingly, and for the users of those goods and services to pay for them. If employers want to squeeze profits then let them do it in the marketplace. That would encourage capitalism to work the way its defenders say it should. I hasten to add that there are times when it makes sense to subsidize businesses for strategic purposes, but fast food (for instance) is not one of them.
Charlie Baker has been advocating an increased Earned Income Tax Credit. Though it’s “socialist” for a Republican today, I consider this idea an improper subsidy to employers that don’t pay a decent wage. With the EITC dollars coming out of the state budget, other programs are cut or taxes are raised on average Massachusetts citizens.
And one to be used whenever a righty brings up EITC as a minimum wage alternative. The alternative to minimum wage is more welfare-and seeing as the people receiving it are working it’s really a fork if corporate welfare. In many ways welfare reforms greatest failure to get people employed has been a low minimum wage merged with an EITC that is in effect a form of corporate welfare.
or we could reduce costs.*
What are we doing to keep mass transit costs down? The costs of healthy food? The cost of safe and adequate housing? The cost of health care? The cost of job training or higher ed for parent or child?
I’m not arguing against raising the minimum wage, but it seems to me that if you’re worried about a single parent working full time and making ends meet, the expenses of that lifestyle are as important as the wages. The risk of a sudden dramatic expense (moving is incredibly expensive due to first, last, deposit, etc. So is hospitalization, etc.).
I think we need to focus on driving down “expenses of living,” both the mundane (price of a banana or pack of diapers) and the exotic (prescription drugs); both the predictable (price of bus fare) and the unpredictable (emergency room visit). And, we need to do it not just for the single parent working a full time minimum wage job (and therefore under the very low threshold of poverty line) but for all working class families.
This means a reworking of housing and development policies. Better transit. Driving down the cost and the complexities of UMass tuition and fees. Ambulance rides that don’t cost many hundreds of dollars. All of that stuff is much harder than merely raising the minimum wage, but methinks the results are more sustainable, benefit a far larger segment of our society, and don’t result in yet another Democratic priority that clearly benefits the poor or yet another Republican priority that clearly benefits the rich, leaving the much broader middle class wondering why, with all the rhetoric, nobody seems to be helping them too.
Every $1 increase in wages is, with no taxes paid, $173/month. Take home is less than that, because even the lowest income, highest deductible folks are still paying SSI. So sure, raise minimum wage. But also figure out how to drive down the cost of housing, the cost of mass transit, the cost of higher ed, the cost of health care, the cost of healthy groceries, the cost of heating and cooling our homes. Push those programs and initiatives, and you’ll do far more to help the working poor, the not-working poor, the retired, and the working middle class than merely raising the minimum wage. Oh, and do it wisely, and you’ll also do it sustainably, by reducing fossil fuel consumption, improving the local economy, and ensuring that the young and the old aren’t priced out of their communities.
* There is no “or.” We could certainly do one, the other, or both.
According to the logic class I took in college, “or” should always be construed to mean “and/or”, at least under the Aristotilian model.
“A OR B” means at least one of the two is true. But, often in everyday language, “or” implies XOR, the “exclusive or”. “A XOR B” means exactly one of the two is true.
I’m reading a book on Lean Six Sigma, which is a business management technique that is aimed at continuous improvement of systems by involving most workers in decisions affecting processes they are involved in. My friend, who is part of Lean Six Sigma program at his very large employer, introduced me to the concept.
I’ve been looking at my own town government and at education reform in general and wondering why efficiency isn’t more of a concern.
For education, the problem is simple: the vast majority of people who deliver our service, i.e. instruction, can’t time shift their work like many in the private sector. As a teacher, I can get a day or two to work on curriculum, but I can’t be replaced indefinitely. My work can’t be shifted to another team. I have to do it. Without serious cost to our employers, there is no way to involve teachers in Lean Six Sigma procedure. Since we deliver the service, we are the most important people to involve in analysis of education process. And we are almost completely left out of it.
At the municipal level, we often don’t have enough money to invest in analysis of our processes. (Caveat: Some towns may be better off than mine). We can’t and don’t make a profit. And over time, we have had to struggle with making due with less. Where a business can look forward to a return on its investment in increased profits, we need every dollar we have to preserve ongoing services. We don’t have enough people to do our job now and don’t have the time to invest in continuous improvement. The state and federal governments face similar constraints, at least in some departments.
The other problem we have with continuous improvement is political change. You can have “political” change in a corporation, and anyone who works for a large company knows it isn’t immune from stupid management decisions, but they don’t deal with opposition to the degree we do in American democracy. The Republican and Democratic Parties see things very differently. A policy implemented and deemed successful by one side is very often anathema to the other side. And large companies rarely see the vociferous opposition that would rather blow up the business rather than lose.
: )
solution is not so simple!
We in Massachusetts should acknowledge the benefits of unemployment insurance for both the economy and the worker. Glad Steve supports a clean minimum wage increase!