Tom Reed’s Extreme Position on the Minimum Wage

Martha Robertson, the Democratic candidate for the House in New York’s 23rd, favors raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10. So do 73 per cent of Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll.  Small wonder.  An increase to $10.10 would lift 900,000 workers out of poverty, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At $7.25, they must depend on SNAP food benefits and other public programs simply to survive. Any sensible person ought to favor the increase.

Not so, Tom Reed.  In March 2013, House Republicans, including Reed, unanimously voted down a measure that would have brought the increase to the floor.  H.R. 1010, sponsored by Rep. George Miller of California, would also reset the minimum wage at $10.10, but the bill has been been bottled up in the Republican-controlled Committee on Education and the Workforce since April of that same year. Democratic efforts to force a vote on the bill in 2014 never had a chance thanks to to Republican stonewalling.

Reed and the Republicans are taking an extreme position on this issue — one that is at odds with the national interest and the wishes of the majority. That’s one more reason to vote for Martha Robertson on November 4.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Tom Reed’s Extreme Position on the Minimum Wage

  1. whungerford says:

    Income from work is the primary buffer against hunger for the vast majority of American families. Yet increasing numbers of jobs pay poverty-level wages.


  2. BOB McGILL says:

    so in your mind just what are all these people worth ? Most aren’t even trainable !

    WASHINGTON – Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really? Not if you’re a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato – or some combination of the above.
    As for that fashionable “body art” that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.
    With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces. But recruiting is still a two-way street – and the military, too, doesn’t want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.

    Of some 32 million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some way, according to its estimates for the current budget year.

    “As you look at overall population and you start factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply,” said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command.


  3. Anne says:

    Actually, you had it with your phrase “any sensible person(…)” Reed, of course, does not qualify here, as he is solely sensible about whether a thing will work to his own benefit or not.


  4. Deb Meeker says:

    Tom Reed has forgotten the circumstances of his own childhood, and turned his back – not only on the NY23rd’s ” Extreme Liberal” county he considers unworthy; he has turned his back on his own hometown’s people. Maybe Sister Mary could refresh his memory, and try to help him find his heart.


  5. josephurban says:

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the minimum wage of $1.60 in 1968 is equivalent to a wage of $ 10.68 today. So , over the last 45 years the actual earning power of workers has diminished . In other words, a minimum wage worker is making only 67% of what a minimum wage worker made in 1968. Adjusting the minimum wage to $10.10 does not even meet the 1968 standard.
    Now, you could argue that many minimum wage jobs (fast food, stocking , etc.) are “student” jobs and so they do not need a decent wage to support a family. that may have been true in the past. Look at fast food workers, as an example. More than 54% are between the ages of 25 and 54. Of these 84% have FINISHED high school and over 37% have some college training. (Center For Economic and Policy Research, 2012) The stereotype of the kid working for gas money while living at home is no longer true.
    A just society takes steps to insure that working people can earn the means of a decent living for their families without government assistance. As long as the minimum wage is depressed this will not happen. One obvious solution is to simply tie the minimum wage to inflation, just as benefits like Social Security and some pensions are tied to inflation.


  6. BOB McGILL says:

    quote ” Look at fast food workers, as an example. More than 54% are between the ages of 25 and 54. Of these 84% have FINISHED high school and over 37% have some college training. (Center For Economic and Policy Research, 2012) The stereotype of the kid working for gas money while living at home is no longer true.”
    now ask yourself why this is true. It’s because industry can now go overseas and get the same job done for less money. Higher wages in the US is what drove manufacturing out of New York State in the first place. Companies went south, to Mexico and China. Now you want to drive out what’s left too. Wonderful strategy, you are going to put the farmers out of business too.
    Now you are going to blame corporate profits, while you enjoy the cheap goods produced in places like China and Mexico. US companies can’t compete unless they go overseas, but you would rather have them go out of business.


  7. whungerford says:

    One of the reforms in Tom Reed’s HOSPICE bill was to link payments to providers to inflation. A badly needed reform is to link the cap on SS payroll tax to inflation. Still, there may be a danger if too much is linked to inflation–positive feedback encouraging inflation.


  8. josephurban says:

    Bob….Point 1. I don’t see how the fast food industry is able to get workers from overseas to man the counters at, say, a McDonalds. That just makes no sense. The food service workers must live in the same communities where the service is provided.
    Point 2, Higher wages in the US have not driven out manufacturing. The evidence is clear. Wages have NOT increased in relalion to profits. The opposite is true. The reason jobs have moved overseas is complex, but one of the main reasons is the failed Reaganomics policy. Much of which people still cling to today, even though it has been a failure for American workers.
    I remember the arguments for “Supply-Side ” economics and free trade agreements quite well. Do you ? The main argument, put forth by Reagan’s handlers was this. Give tax breaks to the wealthy and they will invest in AMERICAN jobs. Everyone will win. More jobs. More economic activity. “All boats would rise”. Reaganomics was SOLD as a system of providing good jobs at home.
    Of course, what happened was this. Instead of investing in America the tax breaks given to corporations were used to invest is non-regulated labor markets overseas. (Often with the help of US government agencies) And, instead of raising the quality of working conditions and wages overseas, as promised by NAFTA and other “free trade” agreements, conditions overseas remained poor. Undercutting US workers at home. All sanctioned and supported by US government policy.
    The bottom line. The US working taxpayer saw his wealth transferred to corporations with absolutely no loyalty to the US or the US economy. The biggest transfer of wealth in history. The people that actual create wealth, the workers, were once again screwed.
    Sorry. Blaming the American worker for working and expecting a decent wage just doesn’t cut it. The idea that you cannot have a living wage for workers and still make a reasonable profit is simply wrong.


  9. BOB McGILL says:

    this is another ” what came first, the chicken or the egg “argument. My opinion is that anytime you let government stick its nose in something, you’re going to get screwed.
    OBAMA CARE strike a nerve ?


  10. josephurban says:

    It all depends on HOW the government acts. The GOP has no problem with the government giving massive tax payer financed subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Bailing out Wall Street over and over. Sending money down the ratholes of overpriced military contractors. But when it comes to a simple , sensible economic need…that a working person should be able to provide for their family, the GOP takes the position that government has no role to play. In other words, corporate welfare is good economic policy and a good use of taxpayer funds, but assisting ordinary citizens is a socialist plot .:)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.