Minimum Wage Increase To $7.25 Is A First Down, Not A Touchdown

Republicans in Congress are now on the verge of agreeing to Democratic demands that they increase the minimum wage to $7.25.  The immediate debate is about what gifts to business interests, if any, should be added to the minimum wage package.

But this ongoing debate is not the most important one we should be having. The most important debate we should be having is how we get minimum wage workers out of poverty.

$7.25 an hour is still a poverty wage.  That statement is not just rhetoric.  At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, $7.25 an hour amounts to $15,080.  The current poverty level for a family of three is $16,600.

By the time the $7.25 minimum wage actually takes effect in 2008 or 2009, the poverty level for a family of three--assuming 4% annual inflation--will hit about $19,000, over 25% more than the minimum wage worker's annual salary.

The record number of states that have passed minimum wage increases--22 states covering nearly 60% of the population of the United States have passed broadly based increases in the minimum wage, and two other states have passed a minimum wage increase for public sector workers--has been one of the most inspiring acts of local resistance to the philosophy of Bush Republicanism.

I am proud to have initiated the successful Pennsylvania effort to raise the minimum wage to $7.15 in 2007.  But at the signing ceremony held by an enthusiastic Governor Ed Rendell on July 9, 2006, I noted the inadequacy of what we have achieved so far and pledged to work for further minimum wage increases.  Rendell led the applause for my statement.

I am now working out the final details of a proposal to get a minimum wage worker with two dependents out of poverty.  The proposal will start at $8.15 in 2008, and hit somewhere around $8.75 in 2009, and somewhere around $9.50 in 2010.  My staff and I are checking and rechecking the numbers and the economic assumptions to make certain that we have a viable and defensible proposal.

This same effort should be going on in states and advocacy offices--from the AFL-CIO to grass-roots organizations--around the country.  We have succeeded in changing the conversation and changing the lives of minimum wage workers.  Now, we must work to make the minimum wage a tool to get people out of poverty, and not just a tool to ameliorate poverty.

All of us--there are many, many thousands--who have worked to raise the minimum wage should be deeply proud of our efforts.  But we should not let our pride and our interest in other issues dictate a premature end to our struggle.

We have achieved a first down, and not a touchdown.  The traditional goal of minimum wage policy has been to provide a living for a worker and two dependents that placed the family above the poverty line.  We have fallen away from that standard, and should return to it.

I picked the $7.15 standard because New York had just enacted it.  Pennsylvania enacted it after New Jersey and Delaware had converted it into the Mid-Atlantic standard.
$7.15 must not become a ceiling for Pennsylvania.  There is nothing sacred about it.

There is no national standard for minimum wage increases at this time.  We should begin to set one.  With Democratic gains likely across the nation this year, and with the record number of people involved in minimum wage issues across the nation in the 47 states that have seen a minimum wage increase campaign, we should not give up the fight until we have achieved a national and state minimum wages that take small families--a wage earner and two dependents--out of poverty, and then--at that level--have an annual COLA.

•  New Welfare

  I think what the govenment should do is cut back some money from welfare programs and give it to people working full time min. wage jobs. There are a lot of people out there who would rather collect a welfare check than a min. wage job - no, not because they are laxy - but because welfare is more money. That is, they get MORE money not to work, then to work.

  There is no sense in this. If a family is doing the responsible thing - working an honest job, even if it is low paying - i think that the govenment can help pay them a small amount extra to help them get out of poverty.

  by Mikesco on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:04:24 PM PDT

  •  No one absolutely No One

    would rather collect a welfare check

    I'm so sick of that kind of crap. In all my years of working with and for the poor, I have never met anyone who " wanted " to draw Welfare. That is such a strawdog it makes me sick. Welfare is meant to protect children from starving and ending up on the street. Welfare fraud has alway accounted for less than 5% money paid out. Our Goverment wastes more than that daily on things that never benefit the public.

    by OneCrankyDom on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:29:23 PM PDT

    •  Like raises for Congress...

      by Rainman on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:30:54 PM PDT

    •  I disagree,

      I have met a few people who have no interest in working for their money, who would much rather collect a welfare check than work.

      I grew up in a family where we definitely should have been drawing welfare, six kids with no food, but my Dad was too proud to sign up.  I disagree with his decisions some times (when I went hungry), but I know the value of making your own way.

      At one point, at our lowest ebb, we squatted in a house with no running water and no electricity.  We showered when it rained and basically lived off the generosity of our neighbors.

      Was I happy about that at the time, actually, when we did have food, I did quite enjoy it (I was five, and going down to the stream to fish and bathe was a kick!)

      I think that most would rather work for their money, but there are some who just want to live off of the taxpayers.

      I had a neighbor in Minneapolis who had a young son.  She was being paid for going to school and raising her son by the tax payers money (this is only one of several stories I have).  She resorted to allowing crack dealers to deal out of her place (often having to call the Police in to save her son from being strangled, etc.) It wasn't even about the money, just her feeling wanted.  They're out there, but, I agree with you on this point, the vast majority of these people would like to have a well paying, respectable job.

      by rage on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 04:46:27 PM PDT

    •  Well

      I think the vast majority do want to work. Unfortuantely the few that don't and the few that don't want to contribute to society end up becoming the "posterboys" so to speak of what "people on welfare" are really like. And this hurts the rest of the people, the vast majority being very hard working people.

      by jiacinto on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 04:55:51 PM PDT

    •  Whatever welfare is suposed to do,

      in it's current form, it isn't doing it. No strawman where I live. I know people who would rather collect welfare because it is more money than working. I know teens who have children so they can collect ADC, foodstamps and fuel assistance.
      I don't know where you live, but here in Appalachia, we have generational welfare families, who prefer to collect because it's more money than working for minimum wage. At least that is their perception. I do not know the statistics. But this does happen. Foodstamps are also sold for drug money. Fuel assistance is in some cases paid directly by check to the individual, and I also know of cases where it is collected specifically to get the cash. Yuk, yuk, "I heats with wood I cut...got any (insert drug of choice here) for sale?

      by emmasnacker on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 08:02:51 PM PDT

      •  The Higher We Get the Minimum Wage, The Better

        Raising the minimum wage is the best antidote to discourage career welfare recipients.

        The higher the minimum wage, the less appealing welfare benefits appear to be.

        by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 12:04:05 AM PDT

•  Wouldn't it be lovely...

  if all the minimum wage workers in Washington took those first extra two dollars they earn with this new minimum wage, wiped their ass with them and mailed them back to D.C. as a thank you...

  by Arken on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:06:14 PM PDT

  •  Well

    Two bucks an hour is still two bucks an hour.  I agree that it's not what it should be, but it would still be an achievement if we could get a minimum wage bill out of this Congress without poison pills.  I have my doubts.

    by ortcutt on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:29:13 PM PDT

  •  They need that money.

    When you make $5.15 an hour, that's a huge raise.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:32:45 PM PDT

    •  Not huge enough.

      by Arken on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:33:22 PM PDT

•  *clap clap clap*

  While we're at it, here's my definition of a touchdown on the minimum wage:

  A Constitutional Amendment regarding Congressional pay raises, stating that every time Congressional pay is increased, the minimum wage is increased by the same proportion.

  by RogueStage on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:09:56 PM PDT

•  It May Be an Expensive First Down

  I am as devoted to raising the minimum wage as anybody, but the timing depends on what the price is, and I don't yet know what the Republicans will attach to this raise.

  It is looking likely that a minimum wage increase can be passed in January without accepting huge give-aways to the wealthy and corporations, and those increases could take effect as quickly as these.

  Obviously, Republicans are looking to get the minimum wage out of November's election, and I am perfectly willing to let them, but I don't think we should pay them to do it.

  by The Baculum King on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:12:11 PM PDT

  •  Of course

    If the bill comes up with the Paris Hilton tax break attached, it should be rejected.  There's no point in passing a bad bill when we can pass a good one next year.

    by ortcutt on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:24:00 PM PDT

    •  Dems don't have the votes

      Wonder if there are any Repubs who'd cross the lines to block the bill?
      I'm not holding my breath...

      by Rainman on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:39:44 PM PDT

  •  At this point

    we have the moderate 'publicans over a barrel.  We should demand an up or down vote on JUST the minimum wage bill. No ammendments. No nothing.  Take it or leave it. Everything else gets voted down. It's no good to the republicans to blame Democrats for not passing it. They've had 2 years in this congress to do it and they refused to. Now, because of the congressional pay raise and it's emergence as a political issue, they want to put all kinds of bullshit on it and still get the political bennies from it.  Fuck that.  Just the minimum wage or we cram it down every republican mouth in every district.  Adding a paris hilton benefit won't help them at all.  She isn't that popular.

    by dougymi on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 05:41:42 PM PDT

•  Except they're not really

  This is all a maneuver by the GOP leadership on a bill that they know would never make it past the Senate. It's a cynical ploy by them to say they voted for a minimum wage increase, but to place it in legislation that Democrats can't vote for and that is killed with poison pills.

  But, yes, beyond the fact that the GOP isn't really acquiescing on this one, $7.25 isn't enough.

  by mcjoan on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:17:57 PM PDT

  •  They're not flogging their

    precious upperdown vote today, are they?

    It's such a transparent sham.

    by bumblebums on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:24:30 PM PDT

•  Good to see a PA State Rep posting on Dkos

  Some of us are trying to organize volunteers for PA House races.  Since ActBlue has also activated Pennsylvania, you should encourage more candidates to fundraise online and raise their profile.  

  by ortcutt on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:27:02 PM PDT

•  Unfortunately

  one of the "gifts" to employers is someting that's already been tried by Pennsylvania's own Rick Santorum this year.  His bill would have increased minimum wage to $6.25, but contained a measure that he said would create more "family time" for employees.  The pay period would be increased to two weeks.  Employees could work 50 hours in one week and 30 hours in the next week, creating 10 hours of family time every second week.  The kicker is that the extra 10 hours in the first week would be straight pay....no overtime.  So the gift for employers is doing away with overtime.

  The bill does stipulate that the employee has to agree to this plan and cannot be coerced into it, but we all know that's what happens in the real world, right?

  Incidentally, in his speech supporting his bill, Santorum said that people don't need a higher minimum wage, they need to work more.

  by VA2CA on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 03:41:08 PM PDT

•  Thank you Senator - three things:

  The most important debate we should be having is how we get minimum wage workers out of poverty.

  I couldn't agree more.  

  Could you start by supporting legislation to end subsidies given to corporations who outsource jobs overseas?  

  Also, could you pledge to support legislation to allow corporations to sue other corporations who use slave labor overseas?  

  One more thing - could you also agree to vote against legislation to expand H1-B visa usage by eliminating caps altogether?

  by pkbarbiedoll on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 04:14:17 PM PDT

•  Question

  Where is your district?

  by jiacinto on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 04:53:25 PM PDT

  •  Where My District Is

    I represent the 202nd Legislative District in part of Philadelphia, mainly but not entirely Northeast Philadelphia.  The district has a lot of zigs and zags on its boundary line, but its eastern boundary is Bustleton Avenue, and its western boundary is Cheltenham Township.  Its northern boundary is Krewstown Avenue, and its southern boundary is the edge of LaSalle University.

    by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 06:46:12 PM PDT

    •  One question

      will there any be chance of ever taking John Perzel, Robert Kenny, and other NE Philadelphia Republicans' House districts?

      by jiacinto on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 08:28:03 PM PDT

      •  Chance of Democratic Gains in State House

        Absolutely there is a chance for Democrats to upset John Perzel, George Kenney, and John Taylor in the Philadelphia House seats.  Dennis O'Brien is running unopposed.

        The Republicans in Northeast Philadelphia are not all happy with either Swann or Santorum.  The Republican turnout should hit a record low in the city in November, as only 12,000 Republicans voted for Santorum in the primary and only 10,500 voted for Swann in the primary.

        All the Northeast Philadelphia Republicans have some Democratic supporters, but it is going to be extremely difficult for them in an election where Democratic voters will amount to perhaps 80% of the total electorate, and Democratic voters are mad as hell at the Republicans.

        by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 12:00:52 AM PDT

        •  Well

          How do they win in Philadelphia? I know that they also hold a city council seat up in the Northeast. Are there significant registered Republicans up that way? Or are they just more like "Reagan Democrats?" How do they stay in office? Or do they just represent the few Republican enclaves in the city?

          by jiacinto on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 12:28:17 AM PDT

          •  How Republicans Win in Northeast Philadelphia

            Republicans win in Northeast Philadelphia for a variety of reasons.  The Republican registration there is higher than anywhere else in the city, even though other parts of the city are significantly wealthier.

            The Republican registration is higher in Northeast Philadelphia because of the continuing party building of three generations of the Meehan family, the heavy concentration of people of German ancestry (who have been disproportionately Republican since Abraham Lincoln and other Republicans defended German immigration at a time when it was controversial), the presence of many law and order Democrats, and the overlapping presence of Reagan Democrats.

            A lot of the Republican appeal comes down to racial issues.  The running of a black candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania is not exactly what these voters are looking for.

            As more and more non-whites move into Northeast Philadelphia, the Republican base is eroding and the undercover but strongly believed Republican claim to being the party that keeps out minorites is eroding also.

            Add these factors to widespread perceptions of Santorum's extremism, deep disenchantment with the war in Iraq and Bush's economic policies, and media harassment of incumbent state legislators for voting for a pay raise, and we have a formula for potential upsets in this section of Pennsylvania.

            by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 12:22:12 PM PDT

            •  Well

              Who is running in those other districts? Are they competetive funded?

              by jiacinto on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 03:16:18 PM PDT

              •  Brendan Boyle

                Best funded candidate is Brendan Boyle against George Kenney, and the other candidates are Tim Kearney against John Perzel and Harry Engasser against John Taylor.

                The Republicans have the fundraising advantage, but I believe that this year has the potential to be such a sweep that it will not matter very much.  The Democratic nominees will certainly welcome any contributions they receive.

                I look for the Democrats to go from 94 seats in the House today to 110 to 115 in November. 102 seats is a House majority.  The people of Pennsylvania are fed up with the lack of interest in them shown by the Republican Party, and many Republican incumbents are well aware of the problem they face.

                Among incumbents running for re-election, the Republican lead is only 84 to 78, including a Republican who lost the Republican primary but is now running--without switching party registration--on the Democratic ticket.

                by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 06:10:40 PM PDT

                •  Question

                  Would the PA Democratic party do a redistricting like TX? If the Democrats capture both chambers back this year, will they do a redistricting? It seems like the PA map is heavily--if not, unfairly--tilted toward the Republicans. What steps would a new Democratic legislature take to remedy the 2000 redistricting?

                  by jiacinto on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 10:12:01 PM PDT

                  •  It's Difficult to Predict Reapportionment

                    The Republicans gained a dramatic reapportionment edge by spreading out the Republican voters and creating thin Republican majority districts.

                    This year, that will likely cost them.  Louis Murphy is likely to beat Rep. Jim Gerlach, and Pat Murphy (no relation) is likely to beat Mike Fitzpatrick.

                    Then the ethically besieged Curt Weldon could well lose to well-funded challenger Joe Sestack, and the infidelity besieged Don Sherwood may well lose to challenger Chris Carney.

                    The better the Democrats do, the better the Republican created map is going to look.

                    by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 10:22:45 PM PDT

                    •  Ok

                      I understand. I was just wondering what districts you would create if the Democrats have control in the 2010 redistricting. Do you think they would create a purely NE Philadelphia district again? Or would it be better to try to create more city-suburban districts and move the seats of Curt Weldon and Mike Fitzpatrick closer to Philadelphia?

                      by jiacinto on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 10:25:43 PM PDT

                      •  City-Suburban Districts Likely To Stay

                        I think the trend toward city-suburban districts is irreversible due continued Philadelphia population losses and a desire to have competitive districts wherever possible.  The Democratic trend in the suburbs is another factor in this direction.

                        Pennsylvania will likely lose another two seats in the 2011 reapportionment based on the 2010 census, so the redistricting will heavily depend on the census figures.

                        by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 01:16:06 PM PDT

                        •  Oh ok

                          What parts of the state would lose districts? What has been the precednet in PA? I know that, in NY, usually one district upstate and one NYC district are usually eliminated. Does PA usually eliminate on Phladelphia and one Western PA district?

                          I would assume that Western PA, which has been losing a lot of people, would lose a district. Would Philadelphi also lose a district?

                          If you had the pens, what ideal districts would you create?

                          by jiacinto on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 06:32:50 PM PDT

•  Hello, but the LIVING WAGE IS OVER $14/hour

  If you are going to keep us at war, allow the oil companies to make TENS OF BILLIONS quarterly, give tax breaks to the rich, falsely inflate just about everything, then fucking pass a law to give a LIVING WAGE...Jesus H Christ.

  by Barbara on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 05:13:24 PM PDT

  •  I Am Opposed to the War in Iraq

    I am opposed to the War in Iraq, and I am not a federal official.

    I agree that even $9.50 is an inadequate living for most people, but I am trying to craft a proposal that could be sold successfully in Pennsylvania and around the country.

    When my bill is introduced, it will in all likelihood be the first minimum wage bill in American history to explicitly set a minimum wage of over $9.  Getting the backing it needs will be difficult; getting the backing for a minimum wage of $14 or more would be impossible.

    by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 06:52:56 PM PDT

•  Too bad this had to come with a gotcha

  The Repugnants got their estate more money for the rich at the expense of the working guy once again.  Sick, sick, sick!!!  When are the Dems going to wake up and realize that we are aware of what is going on and that we won't yell that you voted for this before you voted against it.  I am sick to death of the rich getting richer through these Puking Repugs.  I am sick to deth of any Dem going along with their lies and crap!!!

  by libbie on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 02:46:00 PM PDT