'Minimum Pay Wage' Blues

As one of the many displaced workers that this nation has sent forth into the world, I have something to say. Remember when unemployment was so high and Dubya extended the unemployment benefits so that they lasted for a year? Well, I was laid off AFTER those benefits were reduced back down to six months.

What I would like to know is this - when the number of unemployed rose because the figures newly reflected those receiving benefits for a year, did our government stop to explain that these numbers were higher than anticipated because of the added workload, errr non-workload, from the people who would not have normally received unemployment? The answer to that is not as important as the answer to the next question. The next question is, when the allowed benefits were reduced back to their original six months and the unemployment figures suddenly dropped significantly, did Dubya THEN explain that this was at least partially due to the fact that many of the unemployed fell off the radar? You see, this is the way it works: Our government bases its unemployment figures on the number of people collecting unemployment. This means that the length of benefits is especially relevant. So if there were 2,000 unemployed under the six month ruling, and that suddenly jumped to 3,000 when they changed the benefits to last for a year instead, when the six-month ruling went back into effect and the number of unemployed went from 3,000 to 2,000 overnight, that would seem like quite a feat. This is especially so if our government failed to mention the reason behind the immediate and drastic reduction in unemployed. What if they realized the numbers were about to get much worse so they used smoke and mirrors to disguise the whole thing.

a) The administration realized that the whole employment situation, which was already really bad, was going to get a lot worse. So they extended the benefit period from the six months to a year so that the nation simply assumed that the increase was purely a result of the benefit period increasing.

b) The administration then returns the benefit period to the original six months and it really does not matter if they explain the reduced numbers or not. There was an old joke that I cannot do justice to right now where an accountant asks the CEO of a company what HE wants the numbers to be. In this case, the numbers provide a false or distorted picture of the unemployment situation.

What they are SUPPOSED to do is call people randomly to see if they have found a job, but according to someone at the local unemployment office, she has never heard of anyone being contacted once their benefits ran out. I can say categorically that I was never called to see if I had found employment.

Okay, so let's set that aside for the moment. What about all the people who were unemployed but are now UNDERemployed? [Raising hand] Yes, that includes me. I was fortunate enough to get a job working for Target making $7.75/hour when minimum pay wage was $6.75/hour. Ok, not great, but it helped somewhat to be making more than minimum pay wage. But wait, minimum pay wage increased to $7.50/hour, at least in Massachusetts, and my payraise time came around and what do you think I was making then? You gotta remember I was brought in at $1.00 over minimum, but I was still making $7.75/hour and I had been there for nine months. So I had my review and learned how much my payraise was - I received a $0.13 pay increase. So let me get this straight - new employees are still brought in at $1.00 over minimum, or $8.50/hour, and I was now making $0.38 over minimum, or $7.88/hour? In that case, where is the incentive to stay with one employer? Job-hopping no longer sounds like such a bad thing.

Ahhh, but there are more rubs to come. You see, as soon as minimum pay increases, businesses have an excuse to increase prices. The way they justify the increase is that their wage costs just went up. But didn't we just determine that the impact would not be immediate? I mean, they only have to pay the higher wages to new employees. So let me see, exactly who benefits from increasing minimum pay wages? I would have to say that the corporations and the people who are not trying to live on minimum pay wage are the ones to see the rewards. Those trying to live on it are likely to be hurting. Theoretically those working at Target are not trying to live on it, but this is a new economic era. There were a lot of people working with me in regular positions who were trying to live on that type of wages. As for me, I just lost my condo and am in the process of moving in with my daughter. Everything I worked for has gone down the tube. After all, $7.88/hour was not enough to pay my condo fees with, much less the mortgage.

I am not alone by any stretch. The middle class is being methodically destroyed. The only reasons I can come up with are, a) the rich elitists want to feel more 'special' so they are taking out the whole sector that approximated their elevated status, and b) poverty makes it such that people are dependent on the government for their very existence. When a government program is cut, people who are relying on those programs hurt further. It makes people less likely to buck the system.