Wouldn't It Be Loverly?

Lots of chocolates for me to eat,
Lots of coal makin' lots of heat.
Warm face, warm hands, warm feet,
Oh, wouldn't it be loverly?
--Wouldn't It Be Loverly?, from My Fair Lady

The issue of the American poor is a particularly vexing one right now, especially seeing as they want to get their grubby little hands on every scrap they can to eke out their miserable little lives. And scraps they are, and political clout they lack. But they are a blight upon a country for whom all disposable monies should be marching off to war.

A recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece addressed the minimum wage issue ("How to Make the Poor Poorer," 1/26/07.) Don't take the title literally, as this heartfelt piece aims to show why raising the minimum wage would in fact raise the food insecurity issue for those down at the heel.

The piece implies that the current minimum wage is a form of benevolent tokenism, for if the wage were to go from it's current $5.15 to to the proposed $7.25 an hour, many--"the losers"-- will be "pushed into unemployment, the underground economy or crime," as they will not be "worth the new, higher (wage) to the employers." The Federal minimum wage has not been increased in almost a decade (1997).

It is the forcing them into a life of crime allegation which is the real motivator to keep the current minimum wage. Lord knows we're larding enough good-for-nothings at Gitmo. Why let our own indigenous grow fat off the land when we have so expertly adjusted the wage to keep them working, but not overpaying them for their negligible contributions?

Describing the trickle-down effect for the poor, the Journal explains that raising the minimum wage would translate into higher fast food costs, "And poor families are disproportionately hurt by the rise in the price of fast foods and other goods produced with low-skilled labor because these families spend a relatively large fraction of their incomes on such goods." Of course, this is presuming that your poorest folks are the ones supping at McDonald's.

But there's another tier down, who cannot even afford that luxury, and for whom home-prepared meals are the only option. And we are not talking Chez Panisse-style, either. Four of ten Americans use food stamps, and 11% of American households suffer from hunger.

Another big objection raised is that the "gainers from a higher minimum wage are not poor."

"Most minimum-wage workers are part time, and for the majority their minimum-wage income supplements an income derived from other sources. Examples are retirees living on Social Security or private pensions who want to get out of the house part of the day and earn pin money, stay-at-home spouses who want to supplement their spouse's earnings, and teenagers working after school. An increase in the minimum wage will thus provide a windfall to many workers who are not poor."

Windfall. That's just not a word I often associate with "minimum wage". And I really doubt most pensioners and mothers work for pin money. What the Journal's calling pin money money is for them, money for milk or other such necessities. Oh, I imagine if a Goldman Sachs broker took a part-time minimum wage job on the side, his would be mad money, but we're not talking brokers here.

A sidebar note earlier in the front section noted that Evangelical Christians are split from the Fundamentalist over the issue of discretionary funds in Iraq. Half of the Evangelicals apparently feel that more money should be spent on humanitarian issues such as poverty reduction among the civilians.

I'd go one step further. Why are we concerned with poverty issues in Iraq, or any issues in Iraq, when we walk right by the hungry in our own backyards?

The President's recent State of the Union speech comes to mind now, and the great praise he lavished upon the creator of the Baby Einstein audio-video series aimed at accelerating preschool preparation at home. The cost of the product is several hundred dollars. I doubt a Baby Einstein tape is being bundled into the meager food stipends of these, our neediest children.

--by Lisa