Skip to comments.Ralph Nader: Where is Obama’s promised minimum-wage hike?
Posted on 07/24/2012 2:24:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
During the 2008 campaign, presidential candidate Barack Obama made a pledge to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2011. Promises like this one inspired a generation of young voters, excited long-neglected progressive voters and gave hope to millions of his supporters across the country.
President Obama ran a campaign of soaring rhetoric and uplifting ideas. Amidst two unpopular wars, a rapidly deteriorating financial crisis and the wildly unpopular presidency of George W. Bush, Americans were desperate for a change. He was viewed as a transformational candidate, a president who would turn the page on the stagnant politics of Washington.
It is now four years later, and there has been no increase to the minimum wage. There has been no congressional vote, much less a whisper from the White House on the minimum wage.
President Obama understood the importance of this issue in 2008. The merits of raising the minimum wage havent changed since then, but his political courage has. The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage has been in decline since the 1960s, losing over 30 percent of its value and leaving hard-working Americans struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck. At the same time, the cost of living has continued to rise steadily, further eroding the value of a minimum wage. Had the minimum wage kept pace with inflation since 1968, today it would be at $10.57 per hour, instead of the current federal minimum wage of $7.25....
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.reuters.com ...
Nice to have Nader point out the broken promises, tho.
If he was telling the truth, it would have gotten done in his first two years—no problem.
Obama lied. He had no intention of raising the min wage.
Barry went on and on and on about that hike. He was going to raise it every year...
Raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an Hour by 2011: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that people who work full-time should not live in poverty. Even though the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour by 2009, the minimum wage’s real purchasing power will still be below what it was in 1968. As president, Obama will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing — things so many people take for granted.
The last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate was 1930. That was also the last year in which there was no federal minimum wage law.
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was in part a result of a series of incidents in which non-union black construction labor enabled various contractors from the South to underbid Northern contractors who used white, unionized construction labor.
Geez, Ralph...ya callin’ the guy a liar?
Yeah man! We wan’ de monee!
Obama has a lot of crack on his plate.
The government has nothing to do with this issue as well as many others.
"Corvair Ralph" is pissed because Bam-Bam isn't communist enough!
Anybody who paid the slightest bit of attention during ECON 101 knows what a terrible idea the Minimum Wage is. Nevertheless, when a candidate makes promises, even ill-advised ones (like closing Gitmo,) and fails to follow through, it demonstrates his mendacity. In other words, even the left understands that Obama is a liar.
Obama has a lot of crack on his plate.
Minimum wage hikes discourage hiring
Obama policies encourage work-avoidance
Same result, Ralphie-boy.
hey Ralph, can't you see it, it's right there with all his other lies, next to his most transparent administration in US history
This A$$hole is still around?
Nothing worse than a 78 year old man who never grew up out his teenage years.
Hey, Ralphie - just wait until you see what happens to your chocolate ration.
Ø's min wage hike is the EBT card.
Higher money wage rates which increases consumption spending leads to increased sales revenues which leads to higher profits for evil rich businessmen and capitalists. And higher wage rates also leads to higher unemployment.
So higher wage rates ends up with the usual libtard perversity of result of hurting the people they are trying to help and helping the rich have higher profits.
If a state is particularly hurting with unemployment, there is nothing preventing them from setting up a program like the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps.
Granted, there likely wouldn’t be much need for labor intensive environmental projects, but states could assign such labor, unskilled and skilled, to all sorts of projects, state, county and local, *as workfare* for their benefits.
That is, the state is *already* paying them benefits, of one kind or another, so why not set them to constructive work, employment, until they can work in a commercial job?
Eliminate the minimum wage. Allow anyone under 18 to work without having to pay taxes.
Leave it to Nader to wail about one of Obama’s broken promises that would have made the jobs situation even worse than it already is. What a maroon.
We’ve gotta give Crazy Ralph credit for *one* thing...he saved us from four (or more) years of algore.We’ll see in November if he’s outlived his usefulness or not.
Every $1 increase in hourly pay results in $800+/year of extra debt?
Of course, since those who unemployed as a result of the minimum wage will still need to be fed, and since the government has decreed that those who have jobs must pay to support those who do not, it's not clear that even who keep their jobs and see increased wages really comes out ahead. The only people who really come out ahead are those who are in the business of wealth redistribution.
From what I understand, Keynes believed that anti-cyclical government spending should be on useful things. The idea being that if the government would need to spend money on a bridge at some point in the future, spending the money during a downturn in the economy and then not having to spend it during the upturn would have the effect of lessening the effects of both. I happen to believe that Keynes was just plain wrong, and that heightened government spending dries up the capital that businesses need to recover, but it's interesting to compare that with things like Cash for Clunkers, which spent billions of dollars to destroy perfectly good cars which would otherwise have been useful.