Yes, it was a close vote and nearly half the people voted for it. Nearly isn't enough when large amounts of money are used to fund development of lies to be thrown at a public too busy to do fact finding themselves.
I will now attempt to boycott all Chamber of Commerce members when I make my purchases, whether it be a car or a taco. It won't mean much to them I am sure, but it will mean something to me. Maybe, I will do all my major purchases in Santa Fe since their voters passed a much more generous minimum wage bill.
Many men of course became extremely rich, but this was perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of because no one was really poor, at least no one worth speaking of.
Douglas Adams
Douglas Adams
18 comments:
I think it was defeated, because
the middle class is sick and tired
of being screwed. We don't have
the breaks the rich do, and don't
get the hand out the poor. We
subsidize everything.
The minimum wage increase would just
drive up prices.
Whoever the anonymous commenter is...he is a coward. Raising the minimum wage was the right thing to do and Albuquerque blinked. A minimum wage isn't a "handout," it is a cost of living increase (if that). Middle class workers and upper class non-workers get these raises regularly. Santa Fe raised it higher and, *behold* unemployment went down. There goes that theory down the drain.
Is it apathy or disempowerment?
We don't know who turned out--but it would be interesting to know the percentage of low-income voters.
As to the middle-class getting screwed, this bill would have helped the middle class by setting the bar higher on wages. This would have put upward pressure on all of the lower-income wage brackets.
Part of the problem is the many Dems in the upper reaches of the party were against the living wage. Witness Richardson proclaiming, mid-race, that he would push a minimum wage raise at the state level, giving him cover for not taking a strong stand in Albuquerque. Don't hold your breath for a state-wide raise, not with this bunch in power.
The county Dem Party did next to nothing to support the proposition. What we needed from them was a massive voter registration drive but got nothing at this level.
The State Party paid lip service and agreed to participate in Edwards' rally, with a probably coerced op ed by the chair thanks to Edwards' efforts. But little or no help with ads or other monetary support.
The increase is bad economics and in my eyes creates a lazier work force. If you can live on the bare minimum, why strive for more when you don't have to?
I also agree with first post, the wage increase would just drive up prices. I'm not saying people don't deserve more money, but I also believe you should work for it. I started at $5.15 an hour when I turned 16 and now that I graduated and am putting myself through school, I'm well above where I first started. That's the American Dream folks and I would have felt ripped off if the wage increase would have passed.
Thankfully the minimum wage proposal was slashed down. I don't agree with you AT ALL on this topic.
A higher minimum wage would have helped the Social Security system by increasing the amount being paid in. It would have helped the state and federal budgets by increasing tax revenue and reducing dependence of the poor upon government-funded safety nets. It would have increased local sales because wagearners would have more disposable income.
Albuquerque business interests required to pay a higher minimum would have all faced the same increase in labor costs (unless they were a small business with ten or fewer employees). They may have had to pass on some of those costs to their customers. So it might have made middle and upper class people feel a little less wealthy by comparison. I guess maybe that's just too much of a sacrifice for the average Albuquerque voter to make.
Derek said:
"I guess maybe that's just too much of a sacrifice for the average Albuquerque voter to make."
Yep, you're right. I'm not going to pay
for someone to make more. They should
do that on their own.
I appreciate all these comments. It is intersting however to note that all of those folks who are against this measure choose post as anonymous. It denotes to me that they are embarrrased to hold their positions.
The minimum wage proposition would have passed if the people who wrote it had not try to slip this little provision in there, which had nothing whatsoever with raising the minimum wage:
The provision said businesses had to provide "any member of the public access to nonwork areas" of a business to "inform employees of their rights under this ordinance and other laws."
Gripe to the folks who wrote the provision about why this proposition lost. It has nothing to do with the "soul" or "compassion" or "generosity" of Albuquerque citizens.
Also, If $7.50/hour is not enough to even get out of poverty, then why don't we make a mandatory minimum wage in Albuquerque of $10/hour. Better yet, let's make it $20/hour...oh heck...let's just make it $100/hour. Now, take all the arguments on why that would be ridiculous and apply it to $7.50/hour.
"The increase is bad economics and in my eyes creates a lazier work force. If you can live on the bare minimum, why strive for more when you don't have to?
I also agree with first post, the wage increase would just drive up prices. I'm not saying people don't deserve more money, but I also believe you should work for it. I started at $5.15 an hour when I turned 16 and now that I graduated and am putting myself through school, I'm well above where I first started. That's the American Dream folks and I would have felt ripped off if the wage increase would have passed."
I see what your saying Jim and I would like to take credit for the above comment.
Someone said: "I started at $5.15 an hour when I turned 16 and now that I graduated and am putting myself through school, I'm well above where I first started. That's the American Dream folks and I would have felt ripped off if the wage increase would have passed."
I wonder if this is how all those hardworking American dreamers felt when, back around the beginning of the last century, labor standards first kept children out of coal mines, reduced work hours to fewer than 60 per week, and established safety standards for folks working around dynamite, toxic chemicals, and poisonous gases. Must have really been annoying to those with black lung or missing limbs to have the government mandate safer working conditions.
And to those labor lawyers and agitators who insisted that the mines comply with those new laws, only to find themselves shot at and beaten bloody, how infuriating it must be when the proponents of these outrageous access provisions insist on informing the workers of their rights under the new standards.
Besides, any increase in wages could end up being spent on illegal drugs, prostitutes, or campaign contributions to progressive candidates. How are the rest of us going to stay ahead of the rabble if these damned do-gooders keep trying to elevate the poor? Jesus Christ...who do they think they are?
I'd like to see one instance where raising the minimum wage had hurt the economy, from Santa Fe to San Francisco. It always seems to spur an economy
Yes it will drive prices up, but the cost of labor is a small price of the total purchase. It will drive it up by a small fraction. And then all this money will get pumped straight back into the economy (poor people have to spend it all) and take some burden off of social services.
I may be wrong, and you nay-sayers have your chance here to prove it
The minimum wage keeps wages to just that on the entry level... minimum. It artificially keeps wages low because that is all you HAVE to pay workers. Let the free market decide wages. I am a small business owner and my average wage is $9.30 an hour. I have NO turnover and retain my employees.
Now, if should use the excuse and pay the minimum wage.. then I have a revolving door and employees can jump from place to place because they have NO incentive to stay.
This will be posted as anonymous, not because I'm hiding. But because I refuse to add a 53rd Username and Password to my Palm Pilot.
Glenn
Paula, I think you're confusing welfare with the minimum wage. Welfare is for people who are unable to earn enough to provide for their family. Minimum wage is for people who have no skills beyond the minimum required to show up for a low-demand, low-skill job. When the minimum wage is low, there is overlap. The taxpayers then subsidize (through government aid, including medical care provided to those who can't pay) the businesses who need workers but can't or won't pay the minimum wage. Don't you realize YOU'RE paying more for a LOWER minimum wage?
If you're happy you worked yourself out of poverty, good for you. But why try to make it harder for others? Do you feel that lessens the value of your sacrifice?
Conservatives go to bed at night worried that somewhere, someone is getting more help than they deserve. Progressives go to bed worried that somewhere, someone is getting less help than they need.
What do you think Jesus worried about when he went to bed at night?
A vote against a higher minimum wage is an affirmative act. 100 years of labor statistics and the example of Henry Ford prove there's no logical economic reason to oppose a higher minimum wage. So...are there any explanations for opposition other than ignorance or selfishness?
I'm sorry, some people are just not equipped for a variety of reasons to go to college or learn the kind of skills that lead to high wage jobs. Yet, most of them work very hard at what they do and I can't see how anyone with a heart can believe they shouldn't get enough wages to cover basic living expenses.
When America's middle class was thriving, we paid our janitors and motel maids and common laborers of all sorts enough to live with dignity, some sense of stability and a real stake in the community. Many people who might have ended up in poverty, petty crime or worse were brought into the system and became solid citizens.
Today, most manufacturing and factory jobs are gone overseas and the kinds of jobs the less talented and blessed among us can get are dead-end jobs with little chance for advancement, and they don't pay enough to support a decent life.
If we want a robust economy, a vibrant city and decreases in the costs we must bear for jails, police, social services and more, we must ensure that all who work are paid at least enough to be a part of our community. We all benefit.
Paula:
You make some points I appreciate. I play the Jesus card here only to remind those who attend a church with a big cross on it that they shouldn't forget whose name they invoke when they calls themselves Christians. And why do those in your camp argue that Christianity and government should be synonymous, but that helping the poor should not be a role of the government?
And I am troubled, as are you, that some able folks are resting on our laurels. But your statement that "these people have the ability to do better for themselves, but are steadfast in their refusal to do so" troubles me. Though you may have had the ability to do better, and did so, why are you so certain that others could, but won't? Are we not better off focusing on helping, rather than on what part of that charity might be wasted? And by your logic that helping the poor is potentially further debilitating, should we not give money to the City of Hope, American Cancer Society, or the American Lung association, for fear that we'd be helping people not quit smoking?
Is not this blanket assumption that the poor are lazy, or that those helped are unnecessarily and destructively babied, an excuse for not thinking about or feeling for those who genuinely are in need?
I can't make someone more or less a Christian or a compassionate conservative (and I am neither), but I can point out when there's no Christ in the Christian, or compassion in the conservative. If the right wants admit that they're stingy, selfish, and mean (not that there's anything objectively wrong with any of those things) - and defend those positions - we can have that debate, instead of this one about truth in advertising.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but is it not possible that, somewhere along the way, Jesus helped someone without a genuine need?
Exactly what made Jesus a Liberal....helping people who were poor, or helping people who were poor by choice?
Is this simply an argument about what percentage of the poor have chosen to be?
Having said all that....I do wonder how much effort it woud have taken a lot of poor people to register and vote themselves a pay raise. This is the most legitimate argument I've heard that poor people must WANT to be poor. Or not want not to be poor.
It's the ultimate "Luck is the residue of design" argument. And I think it would be a lot stronger an argument if there weren't so many people born with silver spoons in their mouths and cash in their college savings accounts. Exactly whose design is that?
Regarding realism: Realists do go to bed at night considering the responsibilities they have brought upon themselves. Should they also ignore the burdens they've been saddled with due to fewer birthrights than more fortunately conceived others, bad genes, even long past mistakes now learned from? And these same Realists who also wake up in the morning with the steadfast knowledge that if someone wants better, they should do better- regardless of how easy they want it to be.....should they offer no help and, in fact, vote to discourage a better chance for those less advantaged? Do you REALLY believe that we're strengthening the weak by making it harder for them?
It's a common affliction in this black//white talkradio world to believe it's a zero-sum game, where for one person to benefit, you with more must lose. The poorer the poor, the richer the rich. I wonder how many in the middle are closer to the former than the latter, and don't realize it.
Your 'work harder and all will be well' argument is a pyramid scheme. We could all go out and get doctorates, but someone would still have to change the bedpans, no? Whatever will we do when we run out of immigrants? There is (or should be) dignity in every job. Raising the minimum wage enhances that dignity. At the expense of others? Maybe, a little. Who among us cannot afford that?
If you don't want to help those economically lesser than yourself, just say so, but please don't tell me most of them will be better off with this "tough love" approach to social economics.
Paula, I was careful to use the phrase 'in your camp', for a reason. You may not want to be associated with Republicans (especially now that their head is rotting something fierce) or the pious (I think they just figured out that the rich have been using them, and not the other way around), but they pushed the same button in the booth that you did. It appears you have your own reasons, are very capable of communicating them, and I believe I now understand them.
My voter registration is more a function of which primary I want to vote in than any particular sense of kinship, though I will say that since Nader made a mess of things in Florida, political independence seems to be more trouble than it's worth.
I'm sorry your neighbors can't stop having unnecessary children, but I do not think that a lower minimum wage will affect their rate of production. It may, however, affect the quality of life those offspring have. Babies are the most profound mark we leave on the world, and yet there's still no legal, economic, or other qualification for producing them, let alone raising them well.
Maybe we can work out a great compromise.....free birth control for all, abortions for only those who can prove a medical need, adoptions for all who want them, sexual freedom for consenting adults, and no limitations on freedom of speech. I certainly do not wish to compromise yours.
I do respect you for voting (even though we cancelled each other out) and remain disgusted with people who don't bother.
I am not sure there ever was a Jesus Christ, but he's got some kind of track record and is widely celebrated. (I only ask that his boosters' actions are consistent with his reported teachings, especially if they're gonna use his name to raise money).
I don't know what your neighbor looks like, but I'll volunteer to bring the popcorn. Who knows, maybe an hour or two of exposure to that will change my position.
Post a Comment