Skip to main content

One of the main reasons I have been supporting John Edwards so ardently is that I believe he is the only candidate who can be trusted to fight for middle-class jobs, and raising the wages of low and middle class workers. This is something John Edwards cares deeply about. He came from a working, union, middle-class family and he has seen firsthand how pay can affect millions of Americans. He wants to end unfair trade deals that cost American middle class jobs, and best of all he wants to fight for the wages of lower-class workers, so that they can make the jump into and revive our middle class once again.

Fighting for Working America is the crusade of John Edwards' life, and so it is the focus of our campaign. While profits have reached all-time highs, the American worker and the American middle-class have been sacrificed. Edwards has not only spoken on this, he has come up with a plan to raise wages and expand our middle-class once more. I wanted to share them with everyone, and comment, and welcome comment. I hope many undecideds will look and see why Democrats like myself are so enthusiastic about John Edwards.

As always Edwards begins by identifying something he thinks is disturbing, and would want to change if he were in the White House. He does that here:

In America today, most families are working harder and struggling to get by. With Washington dominated by powerful special interests, it is no coincidence that the benefits of economic growth are enjoyed by increasingly few individuals while most families' wages are stagnant. The national minimum wage now fails to keep working families out of poverty. While the upcoming increase will give a much-needed raise to millions of families, it is far from enough. John Edwards believes that we need to build One America where everyone has an opportunity to work hard and build a better life. He has proposed initiatives to guarantee universal health care, strengthen unions, and crack down on predatory lending. Today, he called for increasing the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2012 and ensuring that it continues to rise so minimum-wage workers will share in our nation's prosperity.

Now, I don't know how many of you could disagree with some of this. As for me, I am working harder and barely getting by. After bills, I have a smaller and smaller chunk for saving. I am glad to hear that there are others who are sharing in the apparent strength of this economy, I am just not one of them. I don't personally know any of them either. Around here, times are hard. I make over minimum wage, and am barely out of poverty. I feel for anyone who makes that wage, or the upcoming $5.85. In American dollars, it is a slave wage. It is time that hard work should be rewarded. It is time for universal healthcare, cracking down on Predatory lending, and most of all strengthening our unions once more. Edwards should be commended by everyone for making these things a part of our nomination process this time. After all, these are the things I thought that Democrats are supposed to fight for.

Anyway, Edwards goes on detailing the problem:

The Minimum Wage Remains below Historic Levels: Even at $7.25 an hour, the real value of the minimum wage will be more than $1 below half the average wage, a historic benchmark. The $7.25 wage is only about 40 percent of the average wage. [EPI, 2007]

For Families, the Minimum Wage Is a Poverty Wage: Almost 80 percent of workers benefiting from a minimum wage increase are adult workers. Americans working full-time at the minimum wage today take home only about $10,700 a year before taxes, nearly 40 percent below the poverty line for a family of three. Even after this month's scheduled increase to $5.85, minimum-wage workers will earn about $12,200, still nearly 30 percent below the poverty line for these families. [Kennedy, 2007; EPI, 2007]

Some people may find these numbers shocking and disturbing, but being a relatively low-wage worker myself, I could only imagine what those making even lower wages are going through.

Edwards now makes a monumental statement. Reading things like this make me proud to be an Edwards supporter, and even more determined to get his message out:

Our Shared Prosperity Depends on Improving Low-Wage Jobs: As the number of service jobs in our economy continues to grow, improving the quality of these jobs is critical to the strength of the middle class. Eighteen of the 30 fastest-growing occupations pay low or very low wages, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. [BLS, 2004]

Is my area the only area in the country where we have seen a shift to an almost completely service oriented economy over the last twenty years or so? We are seeing plenty of resteraunts, convenience stores and well just stores being built daily, but what of the plants and manufacturing jobs we used to do? If they are being allowed to disappear, and we are replacing them with low wage service jobs, how will we ever maintain a middle-class. I beg all of you to read that last paragraph one more time. If service jobs are all that are to be provided then we must improve the wages and benefits in these jobs. If not, the middle class will eventually disappear.

Besides this, next Edwards goes on to detail why raising wages actually helps the economy despite the naysayers:

Raising the Minimum Wage Is Good for the Economy: Our economy works best when regular families are sharing in its prosperity. Raising the minimum wage gives millions of workers more buying power and allows them to support their families with less government aid and contribute to the economy. Studies have shown no negative employment effects from recent minimum wage increases, and higher wages can lead to lower employee turnover and absenteeism and improved productivity. [Card and Krueger, 1994; Fiscal Policy Institute, 2004; EPI, 2007]

To me this is only common sense. If more people besides the very rich actually have more money left over to spend because they are being paid fair wages, then more money gets spent by more people and more businesses make more money. Besides this, with lower turnover and higher productivity, business owners enjoy even more benefit. The only reason to oppose it is flat-out greed.

Edwards then goes on to outline some things he would do as President:

A longtime champion of raising the minimum wage, John Edwards worked to help pass minimum wage ballot initiatives in six states in 2006. He believes that the minimum wage should be more than a safety net: it can lift more than a million workers out of poverty and play a meaningful role in reducing inequality. As president he will:

Raise the Wage to $9.50 by 2012: Edwards will set a national goal of a minimum wage that equals half the average wage. To accomplish this goal, he will raise the minimum wage by 75 cents a year until it reaches $9.50 in 2012. Edwards will also restore the minimum wage for tipped workers to half the full minimum wage; the minimum wage for these workers has stood at $2.13 since 1997. [EPI, 2007]

Those are actually very good ideas. I think a minimum wage at half the national average is both fair and sensible. I also believe that the tipped worker wage should be half the minimum wage. That is just fair also.

The next part is what sets Edwards ahead of the pack as the leader that would most benefit working people in this primary:

Ensure Continued Rising Wages: Working families cannot rely on Washington to stand up for them. Instead, recent decades saw Congress tolerating a stagnant minimum wage while millions of families lost ground. Once the minimum wage reaches $9.50 an hour, Edwards will index it so that it automatically rises each year along with average wages, ensuring that all workers share in America's growth. [CBPP, 2006]

This is a brilliant idea. This government has shown that once big business gets in bed with the right people, working people suffer. Year after year, we see Congress voting themselves a raise like clockwork, and we see corporate profits shoot through the roof. Both of these groups of people have shown that they care little if the average American shares in the prosperity. It is time that minimum wage was tied to rise with other wages. As Edwards says, all workers should share in the prosperity they helpled create.

Edwards ends addressing an issue he has already been out in front of the pack on:

Take Care of the Caretakers: The Supreme Court recently ruled that home health care workers are not eligible for federal minimum wage protections. Millions of these care providers work long hours without overtime and at hourly rates below the minimum wage, and the occupation is projected to grow faster than any other job in America. Edwards will amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to include home health care workers. [Washington Post, 6/12/2007; BLS, 2004]

The fact that these professionals have been denied access to minimum wage and overtime protections is a travesty in our country. It is good to see that John Edwards agrees. He has been outspoken on this issue.

It is past time that America once again had a leader who respected the working men and women who sacrifice daily to make our country great. Too many times in the last thirty years their concerns have constantly been outweighed in the interests of big business. Like our troops, our working people have been stretched to the brink constantly asked to work harder and harder for less pay, all the while losing hard-earned benefits and pensions. It is time once again to have a President who fights hard for those who work hard. It is time we had a President who respected everyone's right to make a living, not just the investors on Wall St. Please join me in electing that leader, John Edwards.  

Originally posted to RDemocrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:39 PM PDT.


Which Candidate Offers the Most Hope to American Workers?

2%1 votes
75%36 votes
4%2 votes
0%0 votes
6%3 votes
4%2 votes
2%1 votes
6%3 votes

| 48 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  What Dem would not? (0+ / 0-)

      just curious

    •  John consider an impeachment! (0+ / 0-)

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:11:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I have thought about that very thing. Since when the new President takes over, impeachment will be a moot point, I doubt if they will much address it. Kucinich, whom someone else mentioned in this node could be relied on to forward it in the House. That is one of the reasons why I consider him my second choice behind Edwards.

        While I think it unlikely to see Pres. candidates calling for impeachment, if things keep going the way they are, and with Scooter Libby getting off scot-free, I wouldn't think it is impossible anymore. Of the top three, Edwards is the only one who possibly would in my estimation.

        With him not having a vote, and with him not taking over until Bush leaves anyway, it does seem a little risky.

  •  Another great RD diary! (4+ / 0-)

    You definitely rock.

    One of the talking heads yesterday (and I wish I could remember which one because the comment was/is so outrageous) said that minimum wage earners live in households with other income earners, that they aren't paying all the bills with a minimum wage job.  Ahem, excuse me?  No research was cited, no basis for the statement.  Just the "fact."

    To which I shouted at my car radio (I don't watch these idiots because I'm afraid I'll throw something heavy at the TV; now I may have to stop listening in the car because I might have an accident!), "WTF! The other "income earner" is probably the same person on their 2nd or 3rd job!"


    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

    by edgery on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:41:30 PM PDT

  •  OT: Gingrich wants tax-free overtime pay (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Native Light, pioneer111, TomP, RDemocrat

    Apparently, this is what passes for concern for workers in the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich wants to "reward hard work" by making overtime pay tax free.

    The head of Iowa State University College Republicans was impressed by this idea when he wrote up the recent Gingrich event in Sioux City.

    Obviously, this would create more unemployment--the incentive would be for employers to hire fewer people and force them to work 50 to 60 hour weeks all the time--cheaper than bringing on another employee and paying taxes on the wages.

    Think about it--if you needed 120 hours of work done at your business every week, you could hire three full-time employees and pay taxes on all their wages, or two employees that you ordered to work 60-hour weeks. That would save you taxes on 40 hours of labor a week.

    I trust John Edwards to look out for the interests of working people. Never forget how cynical and ill-intentioned our GOP opponents are when it comes to screwing over workers.

    •  Awesome statement (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Native Light, TomP

      desmoinesdem. Seeing what the other side proposes is truly scary. Of course, anything that comes from Newt Gingrich is sure to be.

      I agree with your last statement. I trust Edwards to fight for our workers more. Obama is still a little green and Hillary would probably mean more free-trade policies. Unfortunately NAFTA unleashed all these trade deals during a Democratic Administration, Bill Clinton. Their record was luke-warm towards workers.

  •  I could go with Edwards or Kucinich (0+ / 0-)

    Did you see the ACORN debate today?  Kucinich looks better and better.. he's a powerful speaker.  He kinda made Edwards look bad (and yes I am favoring JE in the primaries).   I mean he didn't take shots at John, but he just carried himself better.

  •  Your title is the key to what is needed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Native Light, Ocean Stater, RDemocrat

    We need to expand the Middle Class.  Right now it is shrinking and the poorer class is expanding.  We need to reverse this, and the only one that seems to have the whole picture is John Edwards.  Obama is fixated on improving politics - whatever that means.  And Clinton wants to be in command.  Edwards wants to give people opportunities he had.  I like his approach.

    Very nice diary with the personal commentary.  Well done!

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

    by pioneer111 on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:52:00 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site