Will Hillary Run on a $12.50 Minimum Wage?

I favor a $12.50 national minimum wage, and would like to see Hillary Clinton make it a platform position in 2016. Why? Because globalization has put enormous downward pressure on American wages over the past 20 years. This means that those white collar and business-owning Americans with professional and higher education skills–and who make, say, $80,000 a year or more–need to think about what sort of society they want to live in going forward. The fate of the majority of Americans, however intensely and dutifully they work in the 21st century, is to be stuck in service oriented jobs with low or stagnating wages (even as those with high-end skills see their incomes rise substantially).

Under these circumstances, what’s the minimum floor for wages going to be for average people in this country? I don’t think $12.50 an hour ($500 dollars a week for 40 hours of work) and access to Obamacare subsidies are unreasonable propositions. And I’d make the $12.50 an hour inflation adjusted. A lot of Americans are going to be doing low-end service work their whole lives, and it maintains social order to make it possible for a 40 hour per week service worker to have an apartment, food, and health care. $12.50 an hour means that the poorest full-time workers in the country would have some degree of dignity and stability even as the rich and highly educated get much, much richer over the next several decades. We don’t want the country to bifurcate so dramatically in terms of income that the fates of the top 20% and the bottom 80% have little real contact with one another. It’s bad for society as a whole to disrespect the working poor. Nobody wants to reward freeloading, but the working poor are not freeloaders. They are, instead, people caught in the vortex of some very large historical forces.

And recall that most people (by definition) are average in intelligence, creativity, and energy-level. (Statistically, for example, only 1 person in 400 has an IQ above 140.) This means that there are only so many individuals in a culture who can rely solely on their creativity, intelligence, entrepreneurship, and motivation to outdistance the larger economic forces exerting downward pressure on them (in this historical moment, that would be globalization and technological innovations that are rendering the future of whole employment sectors in the U.S. insecure). Globalization is a good thing, technological innovation is a good thing–but this also means a $12.50 minimum wage with Obamacare is a good thing. In a dynamic time like this, they all go together. Hillary would inspire my active support if she would run on issues like this.

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Will Hillary Run on a $12.50 Minimum Wage?

  1. andrewclunn says:

    Putting aside our complete disagreement on the wisdom of such a minimum wage, I do not foresee Hillary making such a stand unless her liberal credentials are under attack. She has nothing to gain (politically) from taking such a stand, and she would not take a stand on such an issue during the election if it could only hurt her chances.

  2. Staffan says:

    “Globalization is a good thing, technological innovation is a good thing–but this also means a $12.50 minimum wage with Obamacare is a good thing.”

    That’s how good globalization is – 12.50 minimum wage and Obamacare? I take it you’re not a political speech writer ; ) The bigger issue is what happens when most jobs are automated. It doesn’t matter what minimum wage you settle for if there simply aren’t any jobs. I think we will have to try different things then, like a citizen’s wage or something.

    • andrewclunn says:

      When the same people wanted to raise the minimum wage are pushing for letting an endless stream of immigrants into the country? Xenophobia is the cure and socialism is the disease, not the other way around. The more you push to force people to pay for others’ needs, the more the despise the “others.”

      • Staffan says:

        Accepting this hyperbolic terminology, I would say both are the cure. You create a nation of strangers, with all the problems that follow from that, just as easily with economic inequality as with diversity. (Although diversity is worse because there is no way back.)

      • andrewclunn says:

        You’re missing my point. A country of strangers is a GOOD thing. When people are not united, but co-exist for purely selfish reason of stability, that’s ideal. Unity and nationalism are for uniting fools behind corruption. When people look around and see others are so different from themselves, the xenophobia will cause them to oppose social safety nets more and more. Multiculturalism and open immigration will bring racism back, resulting in some fascist hyper nationalist states, and other free market “he’s not my brother, so I’m not his keeper” laisse faire societies. Both of which will out compete the socialist debt riddled bureaucracies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s