Last week, Washington, DC’s mayor supported Wal-Mart by vetoing a law that would raise the minimum wage in DC to $12.50/hour. The bill targeted big-box retail, so it wasn’t a straight wage increase. Still, Kathleen Geier wonders why Democrats (and she lists a lot of them) are so reluctant to make a stand against Wal-Mart:
As always, I completely understand why Republicans and conservatives love them some Walmart. But when liberals support pro-Walmart policies, there is a huge disconnect. They say they want one thing — a higher minimum wage! a guaranteed minimum income! good jobs! decreased economic inequality! And yet they are strongly supporting policies that will virtually ensure that they will get the exact opposite: jobs with miserable wages, no benefits, and no prospects for advancement; the further immiseration of working people in this country; and the tragic, slow-motion obliteration of one of the most powerful politically progressive institutions this country has ever known.
In other minimum wage news, California’s legislature voted to push the minimum wage into double digits: $10/hour by 2016. That’s still below what it would have been if the March on Washington had gotten its goal of a $2.00 wage, which would be $13.39 in 2013 dollars. It is more than the maximum minimum wage, which peaked at $1.60 in 1968, which is $9.44 in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars.
One of the justifications given by wage supporters in California is that 3 of 5 minimum wage earners are over 25 years old. True, but so what? There are lots of 18 year-olds (and younger) supporting families, paying their way through college, and doing the same things older adults do. They all deserve a decent minimum wage.
Baud
It’s almost as if they have a diversity of views within their ranks.
Don’t like the veto but attacking “liberals” like this is bullshit.
NonyNony
Spoken like someone who has never had the argument with someone who insists that minimum wage jobs are for high school kids and that nobody tries to raise a family on minimum wage jobs.
People don’t understand who is working these minimum wage jobs. I like that someone is pushing the fact that 60% of minimum wage jobs are now worked by people who are over 25.
Companies that employ large minimum wage labor forces like Wal*Mart, McDonald’s, etc. have a vested interest is keeping that fiction alive. And the twin fiction that people who work minimum wage jobs are “losers”, and Wal*Mart and others are actually doing them a favor by employing them at minimum wage because otherwise they’d be out on the street. Anything that pushes back on those ideas is a worthwhile message in my eyes.
mistermix
@Baud: Unfair gloss on her remarks, and if you read her whole piece, you’ll see that she picks out certain liberals and explains why their positions don’t make sense.
MattF
Why not just a straight ‘increase the minimum wage’? It’s easy to make the case that the current minimum is too low, and, IMO, WalMart is slowly strangling itself in several different ways anyhow, so why target them? Low-wage workers don’t need a bogeyman, they need higher wages.
Baud
@mistermix:
I just read the excerpt. If it’s ok in context, then fine.
c u n d gulag
Conservative POV:
But, but, but…
If we don’t have an embarrassingly low minimum wage, what will provide the incentive for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
The very worst way to incent people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, is to pay them enough to buy boots in the first place!
Litlebritdifrnt
And why don’t more people push the fact that the tax payers are picking up the slack because of the fact that the minimum wage IS NOT a living wage? There was a study done by some firm somewhere that Wal Mart are costing states somewhere in the region of $900,000 per store in tax payer dollars for food stamps, medicaid etc. Why don’t these geniuses highlight that fact, that the Walton heirs are racking up enormous profits while picking the tax payers pockets?
Botsplainer
@Baud:
And are spooked by the billions of low tax dollars the meritorious inheritors of the Walton klan will throw at them in negative issue ads.
Botsplainer
@MattF:
When WalMart was seriously into the campaign of its Borgification of American retailing, I remember how those who were warning of the effects on smaller communities were shouted down by conservatives propounding the glories of the fractional pennies in savings by free market pricing. Now that retailing has been distorted beyond all recognition in every town with 5000 people and a WalMart, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Has anybody noticed that one of the biggest drivers of local success today has been in the creation of boutique stores and restaurants conveniently located in dense urban settings?
RP
@NonyNony: Yes — the fact that 60% of the people earning minimum wage are over 25 is incredibly significant IMO. Many people under 25 aren’t supporting families and kids, aren’t paying mortgages, don’t have major medical issues, and are either living at home or getting some support from their parents (note I said many — certainly not all). Of course those people deserve a higher minimum wage as well, but many the people older than 25 are in more dire straits, and it makes for a more compelling argument.
mistermix
@MattF:
If
$29 million$4 billion in profit last quarter, almost$12016 billion in the trailing 12 months is strangulation, then choke me, baby.I do get your point that targeting Wal-Mart with a minimum wage higher than other small retailers was a questionable political tactic.
polyorchnid octopunch
@Botsplainer: We’re actually seeing that here in my town, in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The problem with that is that our downtown now has a real paucity of places you can go to buy the stuff you really need, like socks, underwear, cleaning supplies, and so on. It’s also a major contributor to the creation of a few new grocery deserts in town, including in my neighbourhood.
AFAICT, it’s a policy decision that’s being pursued by city council and the two major CRE landlords here.
cvstoner
I can think of two reasons for this:
1. Those leading the “liberals” are much more interested in raising their own minimum wage than those of the working poor, and
2. Those who pass for the “liberal leadership” in DC have no fear of ever join the ranks of the working poor, and thus have little compulsion to fight for them as long as it interferes with reason (1) above.
There used to be an option that worked quite well for a long time: collective bargaining. Perhaps its time for the working poor to rediscover it…
MattF
@polyorchnid octopunch: It’s odd that you’re getting ’boutique’ retail, resturants but not grocery stores. High-end development is very often anchored by a mid-range supermarket, for just that reason.
Paul in KY
I would guess Wal Mart gave some nice campaign donations to the D.C. mayor.
RaflW
@mistermix: What?
Boo hoo, they’re on track to make 12 or 14 billion dollars this year. But give workers a raise? No f’ing way, man. All that profit goes to the hardworking shareholders* who sat on their asses and waited. Capitalism, baby!!
*After senior management gets their massive cut. Oh, and they’re shareholders, too. And no doubt get discount options to buy more shares. Rigged game is rigged.
Punchy
$12-fiddy is a chunka change relative to current costs….
mistermix
@RaflW: Yeah, so much for my ability to read a financial statement.
polyorchnid octopunch
@MattF: Grocery stores have actually closed here. We have fewer, larger grocery stores than we did ten years ago. Part of it is also about local particularities; Kingston’s been settled for over four centuries now, and the strip mall style build out is not possible in our downtown. If you travel five miles or so out to the west end, then you see the kind of development you’re talking about… but it doesn’t involve boutiques and restaurants so much as box stores and chain troughs.
TAPX486
off-topic – but active shooter situation at washington dc naval base. reports of 7 hurt and guy with an ar15. . three cheers for the second amendment(sigh)
ET
In the case of DC I think they are are so desperate for any jobs (even low wages ones) they may not care.
I live in DC and definitely think that this bill was a targeting the big box store (not all that many are actually in DC) and even more particularly Wal-Mart (they were going to open 6 now 5 – which is insane). I personally would rather the minimum wage be raised for everyone that just those that work in big box stores.
Mike in NC
@Litlebritdifrnt:
Feature, not bug.
ET
@TAPX486: and considering the nature of the facility there is a better than average chance they are Navy or Marine Corps.
Mike in NC
@TAPX486: I worked at the Washington Navy Yard several years ago and they aren’t lacking for heavily-armed guards, that’s for sure. They could lock that place down in a heartbeat.
ET
@Mike in NC: They have halted flights at National.
TAPX486
latest unconfirmed reports 4 dead 8 wounded and the shooter is ‘down’.
Roger Moore
@NonyNony:
I think there’s an additional dimension, which is that a lot of people assume that minimum wage is a starting point, and most workers will work their way up to better pay even if they don’t move on to a better paying industry. If minimum wage were just a starting point, it might be justifiable to keep it relatively low. But if people are going to stay at minimum wage for a long time, it has to be high enough to live on for the long term.
schrodinger's cat
@ET: Agreed, minimum wage should be raised for everyone and it should be more than $10/hour.
BTW the stock market is doing a happy dance on hearing the Summers news! All the major stock indices have gained by almost a 1% or more. No one likes you Larry.
Ben Cisco
In related news, the other grocery chains are busily cannabilizing each other for the right to finish second.
Roger Moore
@Ben Cisco:
The other big grocery chains are in trouble because they have no real market differentiation. They’re all selling pretty much the same stuff from the same big manufacturers, so the main thing they have to compete on is price, where they have no real chance of beating Walmart. It seems to me that the only grocery chains that are doing well are ones like Trader Joes and Whole Foods that have concentrated on building their own brands and really distinguishing themselves from the rest of the market. The stuff they’re selling under their own names that doesn’t have any real competition from the rest of the market can be a lot more profitable than common brands that let people comparison shop.
lol
@Paul in KY:
Grey isn’t going to be in office long enough to decline to run again, IMO. That means a more direct donation is more likely.
Ben Cisco
@Roger Moore: Good point. Certainly seems to be the case in my area.
NonyNony
@Roger Moore:
If minimum wage meant the same as living wage then I might even agree with that argument. But it’s another example of people misunderstanding what the minimum wage is and who is working minimum wage jobs. Minimum wage is not nearly enough to support a three-person family – two parents and a kid. And it doesn’t get better if you’re talking a single parent family (where does daycare money come from?) or even a two-earner family (again – daycare becomes a big problem). Hell even an individual will struggle mightily to keep a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs on minimum wage.
I also think a lot of people do not understand how much inflation and cost of living has increased from when they were young. “When I was young I worked a job near minimum wage and I was always able to pay my rent and buy food.” When you dig down, you find out that “near minimum wage” is something like $1/hour more than minimum wage in 1970 dollars. Which is $6 per hour more than minimum wage in 2013 dollars. When they say that they scraped by at a $2.50/hour job in 1970 so they don’t see why people in 2013 should be complaining about a $7.25 minimum wage, they ignore the fact that $2.50/hour in 1970 is equivalent to $15/hour today and was NEVER a “minimum wage” job in the first place. It’s just that their views on how much things cost are stuck in a different era.
(I see the same thing with people complaining about how kids these days have massive college debt and it must be because they are spending all their money on parties and crap because they worked their way through college and didn’t have massive tuition debt when they were done. Except that their college path was MASSIVELY subsidized through state funding to public universities and now we expect students to pay it all. Another example of people not bothering to even think about their knee-jerk opinions…)
rikyrah
September 15, 2013 10:21 AM
Do you know what the minimum wage for tipped workers is? Try $2.13 an hour.
By Kathleen Geier
Today’s New York Times contains an excellent editorial that calls for a raise in the minimum wage for tipped workers. That wage now stands at a shockingly low $2.13 an hour. Want to take a guess about which category of our work force is more likely than any other to live in poverty? The Times says that, according to Census data, it’s servers. Given the miserable wages they’re paid, that should surprise no one.
The Times doesn’t make note of this, but raising the minimum wage for tipped workers is very much a women’s issue and a racial justice issue. Women and people of color are disproportionately represented among tipped workers — two-thirds of tipped workers are women, and forty percent are people of color.
No doubt the racist history of our employment laws, which excluded many disproportionately African-American occupations like domestic service and agricultural labor from the New Deal reforms that protected other workers, is the main reason for the sub-minimum wage for tipped employees. The Times editorial fills in some of the background:
The sub-minimum “tipped” wage was first instituted in 1966, when it was set at 50 percent of the minimum wage. At the time, that was an improvement. Until then, the restaurant industry had successfully lobbied Congress to deny tipped workers any minimum-wage protection, leaving them to live on tips alone. Over the next 30 years, the tipped wage sometimes rose as high as 60 percent of the minimum wage, but it never fell below 50 percent, reaching its current level of $2.13 an hour in 1991
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_09/do_you_know_what_the_minimum_w046892.php
Roger Moore
@NonyNony:
I don’t think we’re disagreeing with each other in the big picture. My point is that the minimum wage used to be seen as something for trainees and probationary workers, and anyone who hung around for very long got raises that put them above the minimum. As long as the minimum was a short-term proposition, it could be kept below a living wage without causing too much damage, since people weren’t expected to live on it long-term. The existence of a large group of older minimum wage earners is proof that employers have broken the promise of the minimum wage as [ETA: just] a starting point. If people are expected to stay at the minimum for the long term, it makes sense to raise it to a living wage, though we also need to deal with abuse of part-time positions to make life livable for people trying to survive at the bottom of the wage scale.
@rikyrah:
Not every state has such an abusive rule. Several West Coast states have the same minimum wage for tipped and non-tipped employees, which makes it possible to earn a decent living as a waiter. People out here can treat waiting as a career rather than a stepping stone to something better, though it’s famously popular as a temporary job for people aspiring to jobs in Hollywood.
Jebediah
@Roger Moore:
Maybe that “broken promise” idea is a way of framing the issue to sell it a little more broadly.
Thymezone
The reason why it’s difficult to get politicians to sign on to targeted wage measures it’s that it’s the wrong solution. The problem with low wage worker policy is the minimum wage law, not WalMart. Asking any particular employer or class of employers to take a wage missile in the boiler room for Jesus is that it’s not only unfair, it’s counterproductive for a lot of reasons, one of which is that the wage market is determined by the minimum wage law and any targeted remedy is nothing more than a palliative and ineffective treatment. The labor market arranges itself around the minimum wage. A few thousand workers can be affected by a targeted law, but millions more will get no help. Only by raising the minimum wage for all workers will the most important effects of the change spread across the low wage market and then flow into the general economy.
Politicians are more gutless about the MW than they are about gun control, and it is shameful as well as stupid to pretend that gratuitous bashing of a few large, rich employers to give themselves cover is an actual solution to the problem. None of those employers is going to go along with a plan to make the playing field unlevel in order to protect politicians from being exposed as cowards.
Stop looking for scapegoats in the wage market and fix the real goddam problem. Raise the federal minimum wage and do the job right. This not only benefits all low wage workers, it boosts the economy and boosts tax revenues desperately needed.
BTW, Kathleen Geier is a liar and a shitty reporter. Her obsessive WalMart bashing has her continuously writing stories about the company that are clearly not good journalism mainly for the reason that anyone who works at WalMart can easily tell her that the stories are simply not accurate. I know this because I work there and I know for a fact that she hasn’t even taken the time to go to a store and talk to workers and find out the facts about these stories before she writes them. She has no understanding of the operational realities of this industry and has obviously never taken the time to find them out. Her careless employer bashing and lazy reporting have caused me to take WaMo off my list of blogs that I read on a regular basis, when it was formerly one of my favorites. Apparently nobody at WaMo cares enough to edit her material or check out her facts. Try saying this in a comment at WaMo, she won’t even do the courtesy of making a reply. The back room operations are basically the same in every WalMart store in the country, nothing could be easier than getting those facts straight and putting some perspepctive into her into her pieces, but she is interested only in taking any nonsense that disgruntled employees tell her and regurgitating them without checking them out. She’s an asshole.
Roger Moore
@Thymezone:
And, of course, targeted laws also include minimum wage laws that are as geographically restricted as DC. Maybe fast food places won’t move out of DC to avoid paying their workers more, but you can bet that Walmart will try to locate new stores just outside the city. The larger a geographical area you can affect with your minimum wage increase, the harder it is for businesses to avoid by relocating.
Thymezone
@Roger Moore:
I don’t think the employers want to avoid increases as much as they want to make sure that everyone they compete with is in the same labor market boat with them. WalMart’s most aggressive pursuer is Amazon at this juncture, and Amazon is a sweat shop compared to WalMart. They pay a little more, but they push their workers like a mule train … just ask the refugees from the large Amazon distribution center who are now working with me at WalMart. Amazon avoids all sorts of regulations with their business model … to say nothing of selling outside of the tax regime and avoiding sales taxes that box retailers are forced to collect.
mistermix
@Thymezone: BTW, long, unsubstantiated ad-hominem attacks don’t make me want to take anything you write seriously.
ruviana
@mistermix: This! I go to WM on weekends specifically for Kathy Geier. I think she’s a thoughtful and insightful writer. If she wants to focus on Walmart good for her.