South Dakota Chamber of Commerce chief David Owen is trying to tamp down any enthusiasm for South Dakota Democrats' initiative to boost the minimum wage to $8.50 and peg it to inflation.
In an interview with WNAX this week, Owen admits that "raising the minimum wage doesn't do as much damage as we fear," but he contends the benefits aren't that great, either. You're right on that, Mr. Owen: the Demcorats' proposal still leaves the lowest-earning workers well shy of what they deserve for their productivity and need to feed a family, but it's a moral step in the right direction.
Owen further fights the minimum wage hike by tacking toward the Washington side of federalism:
The South Dakota Chamber has always taken the position that the federal minimum wage will work well in South Dakota and that we shouldn't separate ourselves and our business community from that federal minimum wage.
...It's something that needs to be adjusted once in a while. We should have a discussion about it, but again it should be focused at the federal level, and South Dakota's always followed that policy [David Owen, interview with Fred Forman, "Chamber Leader Opposes Minimum Wage Increase," WNAX Radio, 2013.09.04].
Owen's opposition to a state-level minimum-wage increase threads a tricky needle with Chamber members. At the Chamber's "Business Caucus" during the 2013 Legislative session, 68% expressed support for increasing the minimum wage. Caucus participants were responding to a survey question about President Barack Obama's proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour by 2015. To the extent that business caucus poll weighs at all on organizational decisions, Owen's position against the state minimum-wage initiative does not contradict majority support for a federal minimum-wage increase. But it is always fun to hear the business arm of the Republican Party argue for federalism over states' rights when it suits their political purposes.
Related Reading:
- The Rapid City Journal likes democracy and ballot initiatives. Their editorial this morning contends that a minimum-wage increase has a better chance with voters than with legislators. So that's why the hard-lobbying Chamber would rather we leave this matter up to Congress....
- Former state labor commissioners are leading a petition drive in Alaska to put a minimum-wage increase to a public vote. The Alaska plan would raise the state's minimum wage to $9.75 an hour by 2016, index it to inflation, and require that it always be at least a dollar higher than the federal minimum wage. The petition has 12,000 signatures; organizers need 31,169 by January to make the 2014 ballot.
- Voters in SeaTac, Washington (a Seattle suburb encompassing the Seattle-Tacoma Airport) get to vote this November on a city initiative to raise the minimum wage for restaurant and transportation workers from the state's $9.19 to $15 an hour.
- New Jersey voters get to vote November 5 on raising their state's minimum wage a buck and indexing it to inflation. Governor Chris Christie vetoed a similar plan last winter, saying he wanted a three-year phase-in. The New Jersey Policy Perspective contends that raising the minimum wage now is good economic stimulus.
To me this is a watershed moment: the interests of our legislators are being called into question on an issue that clearly pits their allegiances to unchecked corporate profit against their allegiances to a living wage for their constituents. If this were an honest democracy, the overwhelming number if individuals would have swamped the few corporate voices to prevail long ago - instead the few corporate voices have kept the masses in legislative check.
The wave of populist initiatives does seem to beg the question, who elects these representatives if they are not representing the interests of those who elected them? Finally, we may have to pay attention to the "man behind the curtain" whose agendas and interests are being served in Pierre (and DC for that matter).
"honest democracy"... I'm hoping the success similar ballot measures have had elsewhere indicates that we can beat both corporate cash and base jealousy with the South Dakota initiative.
I have repeatedly asked Republicans on various blogs about the minimum wage increase what the financial impact on government is when employers don't pay more. A family of four trying to live on minimum wage would be eligible for hundreds of dollars in food stamps alone. They most likely would be getting assistance from Medicaid for their health problems. These families may also receive housing assistance. There was not one Republican response (?).
When employers don't pay more than minimum wage, the taxpayer pays for the void.
What anti-workers fail to realize is that there will always be workers that are unskilled for whatever reason, many will spend their life time in menial jobs and may be happy doing so.
Minimum wage is often considered a starting wage for young workers and should inspire them to a greater future, that is well and good and for the most part works.
However, for those that will spend their lives doing those dirty jobs that most wouldn't do, raising the minimum wage isn't just a necessity, it is humane.