Doug, in the prior post you wrote, that for 8 million minimum wage workers, "Boosting their wage $1/hr would amount to less than 0.2% of GDP". In this posting you are arguing somehow for very rapidly increasing marginal cost to capital of increasing the minimum successively by $1 increments. As I said last December, if a $7.20 minimum wage was existent in 1968 (in real terms at today's prices), a $10 minimum wage was doable both then and NOW--without revolution. It's not that I'm opposing revolution; I'm simply arguing not to be to tramatized by a $10 minimum. Capital, if they had only the choice of $10 minimum wage or revolution, would easily choose $10 and still live a pretty life and still accumulate capital. In sum, $10 minimum wages is not the functional equivalent of demanding revolution. And that is my "honest" statement (see your last sentence). Paul Z. On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Doug Henwood wrote: > At 5:59 AM 10/10/96, Paul Zarembka wrote: > > >But, Doug, last Winter you opposed raising the minimum wage to $10/hour, > >i.e., some 1% or 2% of GDP (staying by your calculating methods below). > >Have you changed your mind or is that small fraction of GDP too much for > >those workers? I'm not being sarcastic, but really would like to know > >where you stand. > > I didn't oppose it; I said the demand was structurally incompatible with > capitalism. Raising the minimum wage to 84% the present mean would involve > a lot more than 1-2% of GDP. In 1995, the hourly wage at the 10th > percentile was $5.06 (i.e., well above the minimum wage); at the 20th, > $6.19; at the 40th, $8.70; at the 50th, $10.13 [figures from The State of > Working America, 1996-97 edition; sorry for breaking your embargo, EPI]. > Boosting the wages of the bottom 50% of workers simply could not be > financed without the functional equivalent of revolution. Which I'm all > for, but please be honest about what you're demanding. > > Doug
