Steve Benen passes along the news that Republicans are starting to offer up deals for raising the minimum wage. Senators Mitt Romney and Tom Cotton, for example, say they'd support a minimum wage hike to $10 per hour in return for Democrats supporting a federal requirement that all businesses use the E-Verify system to prevent the hiring of undocumented workers. But Steve doesn't think this offer has much of a chance:
This isn't likely to go anywhere. For one thing, a phased-in increase to $10 per hour is clearly short of Democratic goals....What's more, while Democrats have voiced broad skepticism about the use of E-verify, they're open to the possibility of expanding its use, but only as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package.
I wouldn't accept this offer as is. I'd like to see the minimum wage rise to $12 or so, which would put it at 50% of the median wage. And although I'm a fan of E-Verify, it needs to have some safeguards built around it, along with adequate funding to keep it working properly.
But if those turned out to be negotiable items, I'd be all in favor. Not only would it get the minimum wage up to a decent level, but it would start us down a road in which border security is aimed primarily at American employers, not immigrants themselves. This would be a huge improvement over the current dehumanizing approach.
In fact, if E-Verify were properly implemented, we could eventually shut down ICE and the Border Patrol altogether. If employers can be prevented from hiring undocumented workers, the flow of immigrants across the border will slow to a trickle with almost no effort at all. They come to the US for jobs, after all, and if there are no jobs they'll stop coming.
I have my doubts that Republicans are open to negotiating a decent version of the Romney/Cotton proposal, but you never know. It would be worth a try.
I agree, Kevin. This is a good opportunity for both sides in Congress to build some trust and cooperation. From the left side of the aisle, our biggest problem is not letting absolutists in our ranks shame us out of making a good deal, one that gets Republicans to go on record supporting an increase in the minimum wage and endorsing an approach to immigration that puts the onus on employers to make the system work.
On the right side? I don't care. If a sufficient number of GOP members of Congress are willing to buck their lunatics, I say make a deal while we can.
With respect, I disagree that this is an opportunity for compromise. You can only meaningfully negotiate with people with whom there is a relationship of at least minimal trust and a reasonable belief that the other side is acting in good faith. There’s simply no reason to believe that the Republicans are negotiating in good faith. And given the history of the Obama presidency, every reason to think that they aren’t.
As a practical matter, the $10 offer is far too low and is itself indicative of bad faith. Remember, the Democratic response is going to essentially establish the new ceiling. An offer of $10 is essentially offering FU, so instead of beginning the negotiations roughly in a middle range where compromise would be possible, the Democrats would begin by lowering their opening bid from $15 (thereby creating a new, lower ceiling) in return for the promise that two Republicans would consider negotiating but not promising to support the finished product.
The Democrats need to reply that the offer is inadequate to even for the basis of a good faith negotiation. But indicate that the would naturally be receptive to something more reasonable.
Yeah.the $10 is less than half the increase we've been asking for.
Upvoted. "we'll compromise by offering what we want in exchange for 10% of what you want" is always good for laughs, but not much else.
In my world and yours, we’d have a good laugh. Then we’d get rid of the filibuster, pass the $15 minimum wage, and give the Republicans nothing. Unfortunately, that’s apparently not how courtly Democratic senators see the world so my guess is they’ll respond by rolling over.
If you think I’m too pessimistic, just reflect on the fact that after all we’ve been through the incoming Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee has decided to honor the blue slip system to give Republicans a veto over judicial nominations (something which, of course, Mitch McConnell didn’t do for Democrats).
https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/U-S-Senate-judiciary-chair-to-retain-GOP-s-15961370.php
CORRECTION:
I have reread the article and my original understanding was totally the opposite of what the article actually said. So, apologies and props to Dick Durbin.
negotiating isn't synonymous with caving in. talk. if the republicans don't come with a substantially better offer — and i wouldn't bet the farm that they do — pull the plug. no harm no foul. but at least you can claim the political high ground and you're no worse off than you are now.
But that’s only true if you either stay silent or follow Bernie’s lead and counter by threatening to eliminate the filibuster. Any substantive counter is a huge concession even before the real start of negotiations.
Equally, I think the moral high ground is seriously overvalued. The $15 minimum wage was an important campaign promise. Failure to deliver on it increases the danger in 2022 while preserving the filibuster won’t gain Democrats a single vote. The sooner the party realizes that the better.
The party as a whole realizes that. Nowhere in your argument do I see the part where you convince Manchin and Sinema.
I don’t see it either. Which is why the Republicans have to be solid favorites to regain the Congress in 2022 and increase their majority and likely win the White House in 2024. Apart from the COVID-19 Bill, I don’t see any solid legislative achievements for the Democrats beyond preservation of the filibuster.
It’s early days and Biden’s made a lot of surprisingly good moves but unless the GOP simply implodes, I think both elections could be Republican waves as a reaction to the do nothing Congress.
if you're making the minimum now, a deal to raise it to say $12 (pick your bottom line number) is still a pretty substantial hike. where's the moral high ground in surrendering that in the name of a campaign promise to raise it to $15?
Just to be clear: one cannot campaign using the slogan “fight for 15” and then not actually fight for $15. It’s certainly possible to end up at some lower figure but only if it’s clear that the Democrats fought the good fight, drove a hard bargain, and this was the best thing achievable. So this process is vital But the opening extreme lowball offer means that to respond substantively would be rewarding bad faith.
It would be very difficult and maybe impossible to get to $12 on the numbers and without making outrageous concessions on the policy demands that Republicans are making. You really can’t meet their offer with a reasonable counteroffer and then continue negotiating until agreement is reached in the middle because if the Democrats accept the lowball as a valid starting point, after the first round that middle ground is set too low.
The trouble is that growers (who support Republicans) want/need/like undocumented labor. When I worked for the California Department of Food and Agriculture I was told that the way big growers got around restrictions on undocumented labor was to hire “labor contractors” to hire the crews. The contractor assumed responsibility. Those people would disappear when the going got tough. I’m not sure how E-verify works, but I suspect there will be big business in avoiding it. And I suspect Republican donors will oppose it.
I think you're right, which is precisely why it would be good politically for Democrats to push for a stronger, more effective E-Verify system -- to separate out those Republicans who truly are interested in border security from those who only make a lot of noise about the issue. I suspect there will be few if any in the first group.
^^I’m not sure how E-verify works, but I suspect there will be big business in avoiding it.^^
Well, Kevin does say it's worth exploring **if** it can be made to work. So you're expressing the sentiment it cannot be made to work. I guess that's possible, although I'm pretty sure similar systems work in other countries.
I'm more skeptical of his claim we can shut off the flow of undocumented immigrants completely, because not all employers follow the rules (duh!). My impression from the literature is that "under the table" employers in the main are small operators or individuals (landscaping firms, households who need childcare, local restaurants, home remodelers, etc). And I suspect they can continue to do what they do until we outlaw cash and/or until we greenlight a truly massive and intrusive increase in enforcement. (Under cover agents posing as undocumented job applicants, payments to citizens willing to inform on their neighbors, bankrupting fines and stiff prison sentences, etc).
You forgot strangulation of a large swath of the agricultural economy and higher food prices.
Why?
Agri workers under the age of 18 (yes there are LOADS of them) are exempt from the minimum wage law and those who work on smaller farms are too (7 employees per quarter average).
The larger farms are so automated as to not need as many workers.
The raising of the minimum wage has very little impact on non-meat production of food IMHO
comprehensive immigration reform that controls the border, gives growers legal access to the labor they need and gives those already here a path to stay here.
Lol, like Republicans care. They pump in illegals like crazy through their religious and business associations. Trump purposely lowered deportations to pump more in too the business class despite as expected, a higher amount of illegals crossing(and in many different ways). Social Nationalism has no problem negatively campaigning on that, I would have shoved it up Trump's sick aging carcass. But the progressive instead just says Trumps a monster because Rosenstein had some kind of kiddie auction thing going on.....uggh.
Fwiw, Rittenhouse is a Austrian made up name by Ashkenazi descented jews.......ohhhhhhhhh. Sorta like Trump. Anything with a Rift or Lind in it are not traditional indo European names. Lil Adolph had that problem with granny. Maybe it is time for proggies to start playing mean for once. Do we SN's have to do everything????
How about the immigrants who really do need asylum? Or do they bring the young ones because the kiddies are really hard workers?
Your talking about .5% of all immigrant entries legal and illegal. It's a big nothing. Border security does nothing without clamping on the rich Republicans who pump them in.
Glad to see that not everyone here has forgotten the right of asylum. After all, the US has had a history of supporting undemocratic rulers in our neighbors in the Americas.
Some of the people who have been sent back have been murdered.
Yeah, if there is good faith negotiations. Of course it's crunch time now for the bail-out, so....trying to stall until benefits from last bill run out in a couple two three weeks?
"If employers can be prevented from hiring undocumented workers, the flow of immigrants across the border will slow to a trickle with almost no effort at all."
You *know* that's not true. Employment will shift to under table payments and independent contractors.
Shift to? How would that be new?
Right. I think people are under the impression that the Walmarts, Safeways and Amazon Wearhouses of the economy supply the demand that drives the undocumented inflow of undocumented workers. I don't think that's been the case for a long time. For years now its' mostly been small businesses and individuals paying cash under the table. Not sure how E-Verify helps all that much. (And I'm aware some large firms hire the services of contract labor companies, but I think large-scale employment of the undocumented by them, too, has become comparatively rare).
It's feasible to really tighten up enforcement of immigration status rules (via the use of tools like E-Verify) among the several tens of thousands of large/medium employers for whom operating in the under-the-table labor market isn't really plausible. It's not so feasible, though, with respect to millions of households and microbusinesses willing to pay cash. At least I don't think it is.
Not new. Just more shifting of labor and compensation means so as to offset the costs/regulations of e-Verify.
The construction industry, for instance, will rely more on day laborers who take cash payments at the end of the day, particularly subcontractors.
Wow. Republicans are scared of what democracy might do to them. How refreshing!
Well, if they’re starting at $10, that means they’re freaked about $15. So... offer $14 with increases for inflation. Plus an additional increase of $1/hour for every year CEO pay is more than 25 times average worker pay. America first y’know.
Nice ^-^
For states that already have $12 minimum wages, waiting out four years to reach a $15 federal minimum wage won't soften job impact -- not much to soften. A 20% pay raise for a firm with typical 10%-15% labor costs could add about 2.5% to products prices (20% X 12.5%).
For $7.25 minimum wage states, doubling pay to $15 could force firms with 25% labor costs (e.g., fast food), to jump prices 25%. But even if that incurred 25% jobs losses, employees as a group would be only too happy to be 50% ahead in pay overall (200% X .75).
If lower 40 percentile wage earners (most all below $15 an hour) sell less stuff to the upper 60%, but for more money overall, their accordingly greater spending will in effect employ more jobholders – while the 60% will in effect employ fewer jobholders.
http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/who-makes-15-per-hour/ (2015, pay wall)
We have to go back seven decades to find a federal minimum wage that is albeit a dollar higher than today’s minimum: $8.35 in 1950 (inflation adjusted)!
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=.75&year1=195001&year2=202101
Denis:
Are you talking direct labor costs? I also believe if direct labor costs are higher than 10% you are in trouble due to inefficiencies.Also keep in mind other Federal programs have a low limit for income.$15,/hour would exceed the limit for SNAPS for one person.
The COVID Relief Program is raising the eligibility for Medicaid to 150% (from 138%) so as to qualify more people which is great if you are under 50 years old. Medicaid like to collect whatever money paid out to you after 50.
Kevin
You forgot one important thing
The minimum wage in Arkansas, Cotton's HOME state rose to $11/hr effective Jan 2021
He's arguing in bad faith already
As for E-verify? It's a total waste of time. Major corporations seek out those who are here illegally and ask if they have relatives that can work for them as well as their current illegal employees. Then the corporation threatens them with financial ruin by firing the whole damned family.
Of course this just goes along with the corporatization of America. Give them no restriction PPP Loans that do not have to get paid back so they can hire more workers at lower wages.
Stop coddling corporations. Do NOT allow them to make the determination as to legal or not for their workers. There's a profit incentive that is more powerful than penalties imposed for violating the law
All negotiations need a starting point and this $10 offer is just that. It's not an end point. It costs nothing to have this conversation and find out how serious Republicans are for an actual process or if they are just playing games. But until we talk, how do we know? And Democrats will know pretty quickly if this is serious.
I certainly am in support of an approach to immigration that puts the onus on employers to make the system work.
Reply to JakeInStL:
Ten dollars an hour translates to $16K/year take-home. I think we can skip trying to find out if they're serious, as they obviously are not. They want their offer to be rejected (as it should be) so they can set up an argument for 2022 that Democrats want "open borders."
I don't think this is going very far even in the GOP caucus. Their campaign donors will object to going after employers. Everybody knows that this is the only way to get a handle on illegal immigration. And they all would rather like to avoid doings something that works. It would take away their most potent campaign issue. Their right wing is in favor of abolishing the minimum wage altogether.
Just look at who is proposing this: Romney, the ultimate RINO and Cotton who is also rather independent if only out of vanity.
I think it probable that the proposal is a dishonest tactical game: To link the minimum wage with another issue in away that is guaranteed to be rejected by the vast majority of Democrats and also by a clear majority of the Senate. It would however give Joe Manchin and Syrtema an excuse to kill the minimum wage provision. No risk, all upside if you look at it from the Romney position (who is unlikely a fan of the minimum wage given his professional background). And who knows, maybe Mitch is the one who is really behind this; it would fit his MO.
Tommy C needs to burnish his Workingman's Party cred to counterbalance Hawley in the 2024 Presidential Primary.
We all know what would reduce the number of illegals: Punishing employers harshly. If they were forced to pay for the deportation plus giving the employees a start up sum ($1000 or so) we would see a rapid diminution of the number of "illegal" people.
So long as we punish the employees and give a slap on the wrist to employers nothing changes. And that is exactly the way the GOP likes it.
The Romney-Cotton proposal is a joke, it phases in so slowly that by the time it hits $10 that will be worth less than the current $7.25
Never gonna happen. Because it is good policy that democrats would and should accept (with with higher minimum wage of 12 or more dollars). So republicans will not follow through.
I believe that majorities in Congress were in favor of the 2013 immigration bill which was also favored in polls. But the Republican leaders would not allow the bill to come up for a voter because the majority of Republicans were opposed. Now any bill that does represent progress can at least get a vote, even though it could be filibustered in the Senate. This is the importance of taking control away from McConnell. It does open up the possibility of progess on immigration, although it is still excessively partisanized - extremists on both sides can be very unrealistic.
I think E verify is a good idea
ONLY IF
we have strong fines, and potential jail time, for EMPLOYERS.
I know so many Republicans who say something like "You don't understand, my business can't survive without getting undocumented workers. E Verify would kill my business."
Yet they love the idea of getting rid of illegal immigration because it hurts the workers. It needs to be a two way street.