Amy Goodman: Wages, immigration, and (so called) "free trade"
In a concise article published last week here, Amy Goodman connects the issues of immigration reform and free trade. Wages are also in there, which is the hook for us.
Our conversation about raising the minimum wage in Greensboro needs to take place on a local level and is probably most successfully launched by keeping it along the lines of: "Raising the minimum wage is a moral issue. People who work full time jobs should not live in poverty." But if we ignore the larger national and international systems and patterns that have gotten us in the particular situation we find ourselves in (even, or especially, in Greensboro), then we are merely applying a band-aid to a complex disease with no understanding or vision for how to really heal.
I'll be interested to hear any reactions to connections between this article and our minimum wage campaign if any of you have a chance to read it.
Our conversation about raising the minimum wage in Greensboro needs to take place on a local level and is probably most successfully launched by keeping it along the lines of: "Raising the minimum wage is a moral issue. People who work full time jobs should not live in poverty." But if we ignore the larger national and international systems and patterns that have gotten us in the particular situation we find ourselves in (even, or especially, in Greensboro), then we are merely applying a band-aid to a complex disease with no understanding or vision for how to really heal.
I'll be interested to hear any reactions to connections between this article and our minimum wage campaign if any of you have a chance to read it.
posted by Jill Williams at
8:17 AM
6 Comments:
Jill, I'm not sure that there are any direct connections between the facts enumerated in Goodman's column and the Greensboro minimum wage campaign.
It would be very interesting, however, to see how much of the 40% increase in the last four years in the percentage of people living in poverty in Greensboro is due to the loss of jobs resulting from trade agreements like NAFTA.
If one wants to ascribe *some* sort of motive to the Democrats cutting these deals that is not frankly and overtly hostile to the working class, then it might be that their thinking is that ultimately the working class in the US and in the other countries with which these trade deals are struck will benefit from the impact the agreements will have on the economies of each country. There is, however, no overlooking the fact that this signals a simplistic, even ignorant, grasp of reality, since one only has to note the facts that Goodman points out to see beyond doubt that things simply don't work the way they expect them to.
The most frustrating thing about Goodman's article is that it points out the failure of our two-party political system in the US. The best we can hope to do is grassroots organizing and aggressive campaigns to support progressive Democrats.
Thanks for your thoughts, Tony. I think the question you posed - asking how much of the 40% increase in poverty in Greensboro is related to these free trade agreements - is exactly how this article is related to the minimum wage campaign. One of the arguments I've heard the loudest against this effort is that by demanding/legislating higher minimum wages, we will drive business away from Greensboro. What I think Goodman argues quite forcefully is that businesses are being driven out/lured away from places like Greensboro not because of any kind of organized labor efforts, but because of these free trade agreements and other globalization forces. So, while I agree that the minimum wage campaign in Greesboro may not be directly linked to the facts presented in this article, many of the arguments against the campaign are soundly refuted, I believe, when we talk about the specifics Goodman discusses.
I'm hoping Jim Boyett might jump in here, too. I know he's got lots of thoughts on these questions.
I think we're in agreement, Jill. I'm just a real didact about words, such as, for example, the difference between "connected" and "related."
It is a very annoying characteristic, I know.
Okay, I got called on that non-existent distinction between "connected" and "related." Donning my figurative dunce-cap and sitting on the imaginary stool in the corner...
Sorry, Jill.
Now how often does a blogger admit something like that, Tony? That's an admirable trait. Thanks.
I'm still in the corner, wearing the dunce cap, until 5:00 PM this evening, but thank you for the acknowledgment.
:-)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home