• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

With gas now approaching $800 per gallon, and your drug dealer turning the screws just as you’re needing your end-of-the-quarter fix, you’re probably finding your wallet uncomfortably empty nowadays.

Sadly, if you’re reading this column you most likely don’t work for Halliburton or reside in the highest tax brackets, and the government isn’t interested in giving you any free money. So, until that kind Nigerian with financial matters he’d like your help with responds to your e-mail, you’re stuck working longer hours at your minimum-wage job to save up for your next beer run.

But fear not, intrepid laborer – help is on the way. Hillary Clinton recently introduced a bill in Congress that would raise that minimum wage to $7.25 over the next two years. Furthermore, every time congressional salaries go up, the minimum wage would increase by an equal percentage.

“Working parents who are struggling to make ends meet and to build a better life for their children are falling behind. Minimum-wage workers haven’t had a raise in nearly a decade. We should raise the federal minimum wage again so that working parents can lift their children out of poverty,” said Clinton in a press release, neglecting to mention that she’ll most likely be running for president in two years. Attaching the federal minimum wage to Congress’ salary may be a flashy publicity stunt, but Democrats in Congress – specifically House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California – have made public their desire to increase the federal minimum wage if they regain a majority, and several states have recently increased their minimum wages.

So Clinton’s bill may or may not be a publicity stunt – but sometimes publicity stunts can accidentally contain terrific ideas. This one definitely does. Consider the numbers: The minimum wage in California is $6.75, but the federal rate is only $5.15; fewer than half of the states have minimum wages higher than the federal limit. Raising the minimum wage is a big deal because, adjusted for inflation, the current minimum wage is 26 percent lower than it was in 1979, and the nine years since it’s been raised constitute one of the longest stretches we’ve ever gone without raising it, according to the Economic Policy Institute. To put it simply, prices are skyrocketing, and many people’s paychecks are staying roughly the same. How many people? More than 7 million workers make less than $7.25 an hour – the equivalent of just over two gallons of gas.

Those who argue against minimum-wage increases – when they’re not arguing that a minimum wage by itself is inherently socialist and therefore evil and since when is Lenin running this country and decent people won’t stand for this and and and – argue that employers, faced with a choice between paying their workers more or firing them all, would choose the latter. But the Economic Policy Institute found that there was no systematic job loss following the last two increases in the minimum wage.

Not only would a minimum-wage increase put more money in the pockets of those making the bare minimum, but it would likely bump up other low-paying jobs, too. A student working for Associated Students UCLA, making around $7.50 an hour, suddenly wouldn’t be making much more than the federal minimum wage, and that job would have to pay more to stay attractive to students looking for employment.

Not to mention that a legion of minimum wage workers would start providing their service to you with slightly more bounce in their step – and, as a former $5.50 per hour sandwich-maker at Subway, I’d remind you that this is more important than you would think. (“My paycheck last week was $10 for 30 hours of work and this guy in nice loafers just smirked at me. ... I’m putting the diseased lettuce on his Cold Cut Trio. ...”)

Clinton’s bill is important for another reason. It ties the wages of the plebeians here on earth to our representatives in Washington. Congressmen always brag about how they are simple folk, just like their constituents; then they hop into jets and congratulate each other on the piles of money that they’ve been raising by increasing their salaries and taking the rest of the month off.

Think how revolutionary it would be to have congressmen legally tied to their constituents in other such meaningful ways. Citizens could be entitled to the same illegal perks. They could be allowed to spend the same percentage of their time bickering with their co-workers, embezzling, and not doing anything constructive without getting fired. Every congressman who had constituents serving in Iraq could be forced to serve themselves until they realized what they were signing other people up for.

Maybe that’s more farfetched than thinking that my current paycheck will be able to pay for my next tank of gas, but it’s enough to almost forget that the real point is to take a bite, however small, out of poverty in this country. Just watch out for the lettuce first.

Send Atherton your two cents, if you can still afford it, at datherton@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.