Of Minimums and Minorities

There are two things that seem to me to be of surpassing importance in looking at our political situation: the fight over the minimum wage, and the specter of minority rule.

The current push to increase the minimum wage from $7.25/hour to $15/hour is understandable, as are the arguments on both sides of the issue. In a capitalist society like ours, profits are the most important thing - every aspect of a business is geared toward maximizing profits while minimizing costs. It's obvious that a business owner focused on minimizing costs would rather pay an employee $7.25/hr rather than $15/hour. In addition to this, the argument is often made that the wage paid should reflect the capabilities required of the worker and the degree of responsibility inherent in the job. As the argument goes, the pay scale of the janitor who sweeps the floor and the CEO who makes multi-million-dollar decisions affecting the whole company need to reflect the reality of their positions in the corporate food chain.  

But it's equally clear that in most localities around the country, a full-time employee earning $7.25/hour simply can't make ends meet. That individual cannot pay the rent on a simple two-bedroom apartment, much less buy food, own a car, pay for medical insurance, take a vacation, etc. So, from the perspective of the worker trying to survive, a higher wage is crucial.

Irresistible force, meet immovable object.

Nobody could seriously argue that the CEO should not be paid more than the janitor. But simple fairness and common sense indicate that the janitor ought to be paid a wage that allows him (or her) to afford to live, not merely survive. The CEO doesn't need three homes on two continents, but the janitor needs to put food on the table, stay healthy, and get the children educated. The issue is one of economic and social fairness, not of pure profit.

The fight over the minimum wage illustrates another ongoing issue, which is the growing specter of minority rule in the United States.

Despite the fact that most progressive policies (a living wage, affordable health care, and a basic social safety net, for example) are wildly popular with large majorities of the working-level population, the conservative senators and representatives those people elect are dead-set against them. How does this make sense?

It's been noted over and over again that the conservative members of Congress as a group represent tens of millions of citizens fewer than their more progressive colleagues, and yet they continue to oppose legislation that is supported by the people they represent. In the Senate, for instance, routine use of the filibuster serves to block legislation that is popular with voters, but is opposed by the monied interests who pay for election campaigns. The conservative tail is wagging the progressive dog, while howling that the progressive dog is failing to be "bipartisan" ... which, in the telling, means failing to roll over and accept the positions of those who advocate positions their constituents do not support.  

This is crazy.

I don't know what the answer is. Well, actually, I do. The answer is for each side to recognize the fundamental interests of the other and cooperate seriously in search of a realistic accommodation. Unfortunately, this requires common sense, compassion, and a willingness to abandon political dogma and the use of simplistic bumper-sticker slogans ("socialism," "death panels," "own the libs," etc) in place of rational thought. Sadly, I don't see that happening any time soon.

I think that if the filibuster is eliminated and more progressive policies are enacted, the voting population will be able to see what works and what doesn't. They will see the difference between government by popular and people-oriented policies and government by fear and the unyielding support of profits over workers.

It's time to give sanity a chance.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo