Home > Personal Finance > Sen. Elizabeth Warren: 17 Million Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage

Comments 6 Comments

I have 17 million reasons for wanting to increase the minimum wage.  Yes, 17 million—the number of children whose lives would be a little more secure if their moms and dads earned at least $10.10 an hour.

When I was in junior high, my daddy had a heart attack. He was home for a while, the medical bills piled up, and we lost our family station wagon.

So my mother did what she had to do: She went to work answering the phones at Sears. The job paid only minimum wage, but it was enough to make sure we could keep our home.

No one should work full time and live in poverty. In 1968, the minimum wage was high enough to keep a family of three out of poverty. In 1980, the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a family of two out of poverty. Today, the minimum wage leaves a working parent with one child in poverty. This is fundamentally wrong.

For a long time, as our country got richer, both investors and workers made more money. The pie got bigger and we all got a little more. But now the benefits go to those at the top.  If minimum wage had kept up with increases in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today. But it didn’t – and today millions of hard-working moms and dads work full-time and still live in poverty.

Who would benefit from a minimum wage increase? The numbers tell the story: 88% are adults, and one in four has kids. More than 15 million women would see their pay go up, including 4.8 million working mothers—more than one-fifth of all working mothers with a child under the age of 18.

Raising the minimum wage is good economics. It means that people will have more money to spend, and that helps propel the economy forward and give a much-needed boost to many small businesses. Besides, with a higher minimum wage, fewer people will need to count on food stamps or other kinds of government assistance to feed their families. A higher wage means people can provide more for themselves.

So why have the Republicans refused to budge on the minimum wage? Who are they protecting? Certainly not the families and their 17 million children who would be helped.

Who doesn’t want an increase in the minimum wage?  Businesses that have already made it big don’t want any increase in wages that might cut into their profits. The system is rigged in their favor, and they have an army of lawyers and an army of lobbyists to make certain that the system stays tilted their way. Powerful interests might need to be dragged kicking and screaming to raise the minimum wage, but I’m going to keep fighting along with the rest of the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate. This is an economic issue, but it is also a moral imperative.

When I was growing up, full-time work would keep your family out of poverty. Now, the game is rigged against working families. It doesn’t have to be this way. For more than a generation now, the middle class has been squeezed, chipped at, and hammered. A higher minimum wage will help build a stronger foundation to grow America’s middle class.

Raising the minimum wage is one way we can start to level the playing field for working families. We should be honoring and rewarding work, and we should be making sure that families who work full time have the chance to raise themselves out of poverty. It’s time to increase the minimum wage for hardworking men and women across the country.

When I think about the minimum wage, I think about my mom and what she did for us.  And then I think about the 17 million kids whose moms or dads could do more for their families, if they just had a fighting chance.

Next, read Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) op-ed, “Let’s Restore Hourly Wages Cut by Obamacare”

More Money-Saving Reads:

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: Andreas Rodriguez

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Jose E S Roselino

    Fine text.

  • Todd

    How many small businesses have you run, (Sen.) Warren?

  • Steve Miller

    I can’t believe a person with
    as little knowledge about the economy is actually a senator. It is time to recall you immediately, since
    you are not capable of fulfilling your position.

    I have 300 million reasons
    not to raise the minimum wage: 300 million Americans. Why don’t you concentrate on the majority of
    Americans and fight to lower taxes and stop spending 16 trillion dollars of our
    money? We never hear you blather about
    that! If you lowered personal taxes, on
    the small businesses that employ most Americans, they would have more money to
    pay their employees. Right now, they are
    laying off people because of expensive obamacare insurance minimum
    standards. Why don’t you help 300
    million Americans by voting to repeal obamacare?

    I also had a Dad that got
    cancer when I was 15. I had to work at
    15 to help support my parents. It had
    nothing to do with the minimum wage. I
    started at minimum wage because I had no skills. I quickly realized I had to learn more skills
    to earn more. I became an auto mechanic
    and in 3 months, I had my first raise, and my wages continually went up from
    there.

    We need smart people running
    our government. You, Warren, need to
    find another job before it is too late for us.

    • Trish Link

      Lowering taxes will not decrease the cost of goods and services. Thats why. The only time the economy moves forward is when wages keep pace with the cost of living. I took economics, and this is 100% what needs to happen. Companies are paying huge salaries that are over the top to the top, and then they are paying huge dividends in stock on top of the salaries. What should be happening is part of those gains need to be put aside for down times. Stocks need to pay a return over time, and no amount of salary and benefits should include stock unless it is paid for through hours worked, and equal across the board. If taxes are lowered the guy renting you the house is not going to decrease the rent. The power company is not going to decrease the cost of electricity or gas. The grocery store isn’t going to drop prices, and neither is anyone else. So the wage needs to go up to reflect the cost of living. Then if people choose to share expenses to save money they will have some saved to spend into the economy and boost non essential spending. This will spur more sales, more production, and lead to possible jobs created to meet demand for products or services. That is how it works.

      But I also agree that our government needs to control spending and cut taxes too. To many businesses are creating corporate offices and moving plants to other countries due to taxation. We are even losing citizens due to taxation. I wouldn’t mind living in Canada myself but it is to cold. Nice all the way around except for whether. Dependence on welfare and Medicaid would decrease resulting in lower government spending.

  • http://www.joetaxpayer.com JoeTaxpayer

    Here’s what you missed – the need for a preemptive strike against the rhetorical “if you raise the cost of employment you get less of it” along with the nonsensical “then why not raise the wage to $50 and we’ll all be rich.”
    The first argument supposes an elasticity of wages that’s simply incorrect. Wages are incrementally inelastic and even the Government study implying about 300K people being put out of work vs 17M helped by the higher wage, fails to account for the positive impact this increase will have on the economy.

  • James Wordsmith

    Maybe if Elizabeth Warren and her relatives didn’t seek quick profits by flipping house in Oklahoma, more working parents could afford starter homes.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team