with todd's 'summer employment', so to speak, and all the discussion of minimum wage in the news, it's sparked some dialogue at our house. i won't carry on about how our federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr) isn't even a remotely reality-based, livable wage; because that's been discussed plenty elsewhere. i have another bone to pick today. (my passion on this is coming back...as i write!)
yesterday i read a headline regarding the city of new york and their wage board's approval of an increase from their current state minimum wage of $8.75 to $15.00 an hour, over the next few years. though it costs a small mint to live in new york and this probably still won't even begin to reach a livable-wage level, at least the city and state are willing to acknowledge the issue and take some steps.
and many states are taking these steps. twenty-nine states have a minimum wage that's higher than the national minimum. fifteen states index their wage to the rising cost of living and automatically adjust each year, with five more states adopting that protocol over the next four years.
then there are two states with very special minimum wages laws. and i mean very special. in these states they have maintained their wage at the level our federal government instated eighteen years ago. EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO! the federal government raised the national minimum wage over their 2015 level, eight years ago, by raising the 1997 $5.15/hour rate to $5.85/hour.
that's right. if you followed that convoluted paragraph, your head should be spinning. in these two states, the state mandated minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. but what about the federal rate? doesn't that apply? that's what you're thinking, right? well, yes, generally it does, with a few exceptions.
which is why i find this even more appalling. in these two states (and i won't spoil the surprise by telling you which ones they are), the legislators are telling their businesses and citizens that, despite the wage Washington is forcing us to dictate, in the state of _________, you are worth less. much less. and if we had our druthers, we'd pay you 30% less than what is already admittedly a pittance.
when i went to lunch today, i left my car parked in direct sunlight for an hour or so. when i returned, the outside thermometer on it read 101. the heat out there was pretty unbearable and i immediately thought how grateful i was to work inside on a day like today.
and then i thought of the people who don't. those who work in agriculture or fishing. those who work maintenance for landlords. those who do landscaping or work for a small business, as a laborer. those are arguably the most difficult jobs to perform in july here in georgia. and those, those are the people whose employers are not subject to the national wage law. those are the ones who are legally allowed (in two very special states) to deem their employees worth less.
in case you're curious, the other wage-earners that aren't worth the national inadequacy, are full-time students. because, in these two very special states, working your way through college is worth less. and even employers who may have to pay their other employees $7.25/hour, are legally allowed to give full-time students $5 dollars and fifteen cents an hour.
d: states, show some respect!
b: i found the passion for this topic that i set aside on wednesday, after all.
g: the cities and states that say their residents are worth more
No comments:
Post a Comment