« Google Holidays | February | Things the Lord hates » « The Things They Carried | Reviews | The Passion »

Comments

Patrick • 02/24/04 • 4:00 PM:

This is a polarized, polarizing issue. The illusion of America is that anybody who works hard enough can be successful and meet all their family’s needs. This happens a lot, so we believe it. We also believe that poverty is caused by laziness, willful stupidity, or other individual, controllable character flaws. We don’t believe in “the circle of life” (to call it one way), or the interconnectedness of us all (the six degrees of Kevin Bacon notwithstanding). So when we hear about 35 million working poor, we think there’s got to be a catch. Sometimes the catch is “The Man” keeping the people down. Sometimes the catch is repercussions of bad choices (drugs, violence, etc.). Sometimes the catch is an unmanageable lack of intelligence or strength. Sometimes it’s despair in the face of harrowing personal losses. You never know why people get in the situations they’re in. We’d do well to stifle our initial harsh judgments.

David • 02/27/04 • 3:36 PM:

I think it’s important for elected officials (and the people who vote for them - that being us) to work towards livable wages. Lots of cities and states work towards that by raising minumum wages. I don’t know a whole lot about it - but Kate Faggella-Luby does (Mike’s wife). I know that many families work and work and the money is still not enough. Economically speaking, I don’t know what the solution is. But I think we should maybe look. I’ll tell Kate to get involved and maybe comment on this post.

Dan • 02/27/04 • 4:40 PM:

I think a solution could be to only let people who can afford to have a family have a family. This probably wouldn’t be a very popular regulation. I hardly believe the solution exists or ever will.

Patrick • 02/27/04 • 6:50 PM:

Dan, I hope you’re kidding.

I don’t know much, but I believe I’ve heard that in the early part of last century, when wages were low and working conditions abominable (in this country), and labor unions struck repeatedly and bosses fought back hard, somebody (Ford?) realized that there’d be a bigger market for the products they produced if they paid their workers enough to buy them. They may have been forced to this conclusion by government and strikes and public opinion, I dunno. But it makes sense: if you want to sell as much as you can, help make it possible for the maximum number of people to buy your product. Then companies realized that they could ship operations overseas and pay pittances (plus a few strategic bribes) and still sell as many products to their relatively well-off buyers in the States. That doesn’t explain the problem of the working poor, of course, but I imagine we’ve saturated the consumer market (or credit card companies have expanded the reach of the consumer beyond his/her means, so that wages are no longer directly related to purchase power). What does it mean that there are working folk who are still poor? It means, for one thing, that we have skewed priorities. I would have no problem with a sort of social-democratic law that limits income for the very rich. Can you honestly tell me that actors, athletes, and musicians (the filthy rich ones, at least) actually work harder than, or contribute to society more than, say, Nino the janitor at Whippany Park? Ok, so maybe they do, but not that much more. I’m not talking about limiting income to $100,000 a year. I understand that you need motivation to get the best and brightest to innovate and create. I’m talking about, ok, nobody can earn more than $5 million a year, and that includes endorsements. Anything above that goes to charity, which would not be handed out, but would give higher wages to blue collar jobs. I mean, what if MLB decided to just drop ticket prices by half, and merchandise prices by a third, and pay all its players half of what they currently earn. Could they really complain? And the bosses don’t get a bigger cut either. It goes to neighborhood restoration projects and early childhood education and soup kitchens.

But nobody will do that, because you milk the goose until it can lay no more golden eggs. Hey, if people are willing to pay $56 for a nosebleed seat at an NFL game, or $80 to see a concert, or if they flock to see every stupid movie Hollywood spits at them, then why stop? There is no moral checkpoint in our economy. You take what you can get. Every man for himself.

Kate Faggella-Luby • 02/29/04 • 5:07 PM:

Sounds like a great book. Thanks, Dave, for alerting me to it. I wish I was the expert you make me out to be!

I don’t know if anyone but Dave is interested in knowing more about the living wage movement, but I’ll address it for him at least! I am mostly familiar with the living wage issue as it relates to local politics. The living wage movement at this point is primarily one to ensure that public funds do not go to support or subsidize poverty wage employment. For example, a local living wage ordinance might require that any company receiving tax breaks and incentives would have to pay its employees a living wage. (What is this living wage? It varies greatly from place to place- usually some variation on a percentage of the poverty level. It tends to work out to somewhere between $7-$10 an hour). The intent of this type of policy is not to wipe out working poverty (though that would be nice) but to make sure that at least public money is used in a way that supports hard working people.

Over the long term, I think the solutions to the problems of the working poor are very complex and will require lots of political will, and probably some restructuring of our economic system. There are some good resources out there about living wage, and about the long-term issues related to this. Check out responsiblewealth or the Economic Policy Institute

Post a comment