2 July 2016

Montana Democrats chicken-out on minimum wage

Yesterday, the national Democrat’s platform committee released the draft platform for 2016 (PDF). It’s still subject to tweaks, and there could be attempts to eviscerate the more progressive sections, but it’s more progressive than I expected given the probable nomination of Hillary Clinton. That’s especially so on the minimum wage, which national Democrats want raised to $15 per hour:

Minimum Wage. Democrats believe that the current minimum wage is a starvation wage and must be increased to a living wage. No one who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty. We believe that Americans should earn at least $15 an hour and have the right to form or join a union. We applaud the approaches taken by states like New York and California. We should raise and index the minimum wage, give all Americans the ability to join a union regardless of where they work, and create new ways for workers to have power in the economy. We also support creating one fair wage for all workers by ending the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers and people with disabilities. [Page 3.]

By contrast, Montana’s Democrats, in their 2016 platform (PDF), call for raising the minimum wage, but avoid specifying a number:

Jobs, Business and the Economy ACTION Agenda

Raise the minimum wage to a living wage standard so that Montanans do not have to exist on inadequate wages or seek publicly funded assistance while employed. [PDF page 17, lines 23–24.]

Labor ACTION Agenda

Increase the federal minimum wage and index it annually to increases in the cost of living to offer some protection to those workers at the lowest end of the economic scale.
Raise the minimum wage to a living wage standard so that Montanans do not have to exist on inadequate wages or need to access publicly funded assistance while employed. [PDF page 17, lines 46–49.]

(Note. The Montana document has line numbers that restart every page, but not page numbers. When the omission of the page numbers is corrected, I hope the line numbers scheme will be changed to consecutive numbers.)

Montana’s Democrats clearly fear that endorsing a $15 per hour minimum wage will generate unendurable opposition from small business owners, many of whom are social Democrats, as well as the usual opposition from the big box stores, such as Walmart. The party thinks that endorsing the concept of a higher minimum wage while avoiding putting a number on the increase will appease the wage raisers but not enrage the wage payers. I think the formulation will enrage the raisers, who will consider avoiding a number as cowardice, and disconcert the payers, who will wonder just how high the Democrats are willing to go.

I’m not cutting Montana’s Democrats any slack on this. Back in January, in a post on the minimum wage, I wrote:

Every time someone proposes raising the minimum wage, it triggers the right’s Pavlovian reaction to economic justice. Those who worship at the altar of cheap labor warn, with Richard Nixonesque gravitas, and with faces so straight they seem set in epoxy, that paying workers more will hurt businesses and cost the jobs of low wage workers.

Those who believe that will believe anything. Actually, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the economy and helps people pull themselves out of poverty.

If paying hamburger slingers at least $15 per hour causes a half-dollar increase in the price of a cheeseburger, or even double that, I’ll gladly pay it and add a tip. So will all decent people.

Do the platforms of political parties matter? Yes. Writing at the Washington Monthly today, David Atkins explains why:

Does all of this brouhaha over the platform actually matter? It depends on whom you ask. For many, the platform is an irrelevant document that serves only to anger both sides in a war of pointless posturing–and that is possibly true assuming that candidates ignore the platform. But platforms signal the expectations of the party’s base, which is increasingly important as elections become more about turning out one’s base rather than appealing to a shrinking group of persuadable voters. While Sanders and Clinton supporters will fight endlessly on social media and comment threads over who is the “real” base of the party, the reality is regardless of whom they voted for, members of the party’s base (and ideologically aligned independents) generally want to see a true universal healthcare system as in most other industrialized countries, higher taxes on the wealthy, much more stringent climate protections, a curb on Wall Street’s activities, solutions to the student loan crisis, etc. Having those desires reflected in the party’s platform creates a signal light by which Democratic candidates can navigate in the future. It also creates a blueprint for state and local Democratic clubs and central committees around the country to align their own platforms and for use in evaluating candidates for endorsement from governors and senators to local service board members.