Understanding low wage work in the US
A new report from The Mobility Agenda begins:
Over 40 million jobs in the United States—about one in three—pay low wages. Unlike good jobs, most low-wage jobs do not offer employment benefits such as health insurance or retirement accounts, tend to have inflexible or unpredictable scheduling requirements,and provide little opportunity for career advancement. Globalization, automation, outsourcing, and other economic forces have all contributed to a changing domestic labor market. All too often low-wage jobs are replacing jobs that have traditionally supported a broad middle class. While there is considerable public concern about the erosion of the middle class, national policy-makers have done little in the last decade to improve the pay and conditions of low-wage work.
The next decade could be one of considerable progress for improving low-wage jobs. In November 2006, voters in six states boosted state minimum wages, and voters in even more states elected candidates who pledged to increase the federal minimum wage and take steps to improve the economy for everyone. Yet relatively little agreement exists about the policies (beyond raising the minimum wage) that can improve these jobs, even among experts studying low-wage work.
Over 40 million jobs in the United States—about one in three—pay low wages. Unlike good jobs, most low-wage jobs do not offer employment benefits such as health insurance or retirement accounts, tend to have inflexible or unpredictable scheduling requirements,and provide little opportunity for career advancement. Globalization, automation, outsourcing, and other economic forces have all contributed to a changing domestic labor market. All too often low-wage jobs are replacing jobs that have traditionally supported a broad middle class. While there is considerable public concern about the erosion of the middle class, national policy-makers have done little in the last decade to improve the pay and conditions of low-wage work.
The next decade could be one of considerable progress for improving low-wage jobs. In November 2006, voters in six states boosted state minimum wages, and voters in even more states elected candidates who pledged to increase the federal minimum wage and take steps to improve the economy for everyone. Yet relatively little agreement exists about the policies (beyond raising the minimum wage) that can improve these jobs, even among experts studying low-wage work.
posted by Jill Williams at
8:12 AM
11 Comments:
Jill if you feel it necessary to pay someone more than minimum for minimum work then why dont you pay it? Why force other people to pay for basic labor. If these people want to make more wiat till they graduate high school or college, or tell them to change jobs to a higher paying job. How about go back to school and get more education. why not work more hours a week and get over time. So many options for these people to make more money, yet your answer is the goverment forcing others to pay for labor that doesnt produce.
Leona, Leona Helmsley !!! Is that you?
Anon,
You comment began with, "if you feel it necessary to pay someone more than minimum for minimum work," which implies that you do believe that there is a minimum dollar amount below which it is unfair to pay someone for his or her labor. If you agree with that statement (and it sounds like you do), then the only questions we have left are (1) what should that minimum be and (2) who gets to decide.
You imply also in your comment that you think that the majority of low wage workers are high school or college students. This is simply not the case. As the report to which the post links states, 60% of low wage workers are over the age of 25. And most of them are "involuntarily underemployed" meaning that they would like to work more hours but aren't able to get them.
Finally, I'm not sure I agree that low wage labor "doesn't produce." Upon what are you basing that assumption?
Jill, something tells me you're not going to get a reply from “anonymous,” or at least not a coherent one.
If all the “unproductive” minimum-wage earners in this country suddenly disappeared, the cries of rage that would ascend to the heavens from all the self-satisfied “productive” members of our society – who would suddenly find themselves having to make their own hotel beds, serve themselves food and drink and clean their own houses – would be deafening.
The observations of “anonymous” reflect the same sort of brain-dead “thinking” as do those made by the people who believe that the poor are somehow morally defective. And in this part of the country (the Southeast), that sort of “thinking” is frequently the result of that twisted and perverted form of religion known as Christian fundamentalism.
Thanks for your comments, Tony. The only thing I'd add is that I actually think there are some strong gifts within evangelical Christian theology, leadership and scholarship on this topic. One of my favorites is a book by Ron Sider called Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. Sider doesn't mince his words when he talks about his view, based on a literal reading of the Bible, that Christians have an absolute obligation to challenge unjust systems that keep people in poverty. I don't agree with all of Sider's theology, but I think the book is a powerful example of how evangelical Christianity can (should?) be supporting and initiating efforts like this one.
But in North Carolina, do you see much of a positive contribution coming from fundamentalist/evangelical Christians?
I hope it is happening, and just because I don't notice it doesn't mean it might not be. In fact, it would cause me to look at those folk differently.
Hi Tony,
I'm sure there are lots of examples, but the two that spring to my mind first are: Cara Michele (www.chosenfast.com) and the People of Faith Against the Death Penalty (www.pfadp.org). I'm not sure that Cara Michele considers herself an evangelical, but I would guess she does. Her work with homeless neighbors is amazing. And several evangelical groups are a part of PFADP. There are also countless examples of black evangelical movements here in NC and around the country to address poverty and other injustices.
This conversation makes me think of my reflections on religion when I was growing up in the Appalachian Mountains. A huge number of people in my little hometown of Pulaski, VA were/are Pentecostal Holiness. I was raised as a Presbyterian. The denominational breakdowns in Pulaski roughly mirrored class breakdowns. Upper class folks (by Pulaski's standards, which are significantly ratcheted down from Greensboro's) tend to be Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics and Lutherans. Middle class folks (again, by Pulaski's standards) are Baptists. And people with the least money/property tended to attend the Pentecostal Holiness/Church of God congregations.
Having many friends who were Pentecostal, I atttended PH churches with them quite a bit. We were even taken out of public school during the school day through the fifth grade and bused to the closest PH church for bible classes. One thing I remember noticing about the Pentecostal churches, other than people speaking in tongues, was that they were the only racially desegregated churches in our town.
This background gives me the hope that evangelical Christians (often the poor themselves) have a perspective to add to this conversation that is indispensible. And I do believe that they've added in significant ways already. I've only offered a few examples here, but I know there are more.
I think I may make a distinction between "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" that you don't make, and in fact it may be that the distinction that I make may be invalid.
Thanks for making me think about this for a minute.
Jill...It's very interesting that you used Cara Michelle as an example. I'd love to read what she would have to say about your moral campaign. Really !! And, STOP PICKING ON THE FUNDAMENTALISTS you guys !! Division and social intolerance can be quite healthy for a society. After all, you're either with up or against us....right?
Sorry you thought I was "picking on the fundamentalists" Chuck. That certainly was not my intention.
Tony, I've been using the term evangelicals because I feel like I have a better grasp of what that term means. But it seems that there is some dispute about the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals. Some think one is a subset of the other. Others think they are wholly separate groups and still others think they are separate, but have an overlap. See the wikipedia discussion on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evangelicalism#Evangelicalism_or_Fundamentalism.3F if you are interested.
Division and social intlerance healthy for a society? NOT! Just my attempt at sarcasm with the "picking on the fundamentalists" thing Jill. I must work on that. To quote an acquaintance of mine, "The Christian Reich is grate."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home