The Death of a Terrorist: A Turning Point?
I found this NYTimes page through Twitter: "Is Bin Laden's death a turning point in the war on terror? Place your opinion on our interactive graph."
Is this exercise in crowdsourcing necessary? Why in the world should I, or really any of us regular citizens, have an opinion about this? For example, there's a comment that says "a necessary death, but one that will lead to more terrorism..." HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?! What kind of information could any of us have that would make us capable of having an answer to this. All it seems to do is feed into how obsessed a lot of us are with making snap-judgement opinions about everything, despite the fact that the question is asking something that's impossible for most of us to know. Whether or not an event will be a turning point in the war is something that only the future can tell us.
Is the future really so scary that we can't leave things like this alone, in it's rightful place as "uncertain"? Or maybe we're really just obsessed with having opinions about things. I'm not sure. The kind of person I'm talking about here was me not too long ago (and is still me sometimes)...I'm still conducting internal research.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
A Fight for Fair Wages
NYC Living Wage Campaign Invokes Spirit of Dr. King
Last night, upon invitation from a friend who organizes for the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, I went up to the Covenant Baptist Church in Harlem to attend the Mass Meeting for Living Wages. As can be read in the article linked above,
Almost everyone I know living in this city has quipped at some point or another about how expensive it is to live here - and we all have comparatively well-paying jobs. While a larger percentage of our paychecks go towards rent here than it would if we lived in, say, Des Moines, IA, we still have enough cash leftover to save for the future and spend on non-necessities. Not far from our offices and apartments, "there are about 317,000 low-wage workers in New York City, and about one in five of these workers are paid less than the legally required minimum wage of $7.25 an hour." (source) Now, if all of these workers were just kids working an after-school or weekend job to save some extra cash, this statistic may not be such a big deal. However, the fact is, there are adults who rely on these jobs to support themselves, and sometimes their families too.
The Living Wage NYC site defines living wage as "a wage which is based upon the cost of living in an area, rather than an arbitrary minimum. Under an ideal living wage, someone who works an ordinary 40 hour per week job would be able to afford shelter, food, health care, and other basic necessities of life." According to the Living Wage Calculator, the Living Wage for one adult in New York County is $11.86/hr. New York State's minimum wage is $7.25/hr - which would be almost fine if you lived in Steuben County (closest "big" city is Utica!).
The New York Daily News says the Fair Wages Act would "require jobs at city-subsidized developments to pay $10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 without benefits." Later in the article they say "Mayor Bloomberg and business leaders [say] it would put a job-killing burden on businesses." And a Crain's New York Business article published on January 12 says "Bloomberg administration officials have consistently argued that tying wage requirements to subsidies would squash development."
As a New York City taxpayer, I find it rather deplorable that Bloomberg and friends think it's ok to use our money to subsidize businesses that don't want to pay their employees (our citizens) enough to be able to afford to live at the most basic level in the city in which they work (and may pay income and/or payroll taxes!). Also worth mentioning is that some (if not many) of these development projects are and would be things like shopping malls, which usually house businesses that are home-based in other states.
This is not a lot to ask, NYC Council and Mayor. In fact, it's not even enough. The without-benefits rate that's being requested here is still below the Living Wage rate. If passed, the new wage levels will not suddenly launch anyone into the middle class, but it will help the citizens of our city live a teeny bit less of a squeezed life.
Throughout the event last night, I kept thinking about the subject of my last blog post - connections. Many of the speakers talked about the ramifications unfair wages have on those who rely on them. These ramifications are all important players in the overall issue of poverty.
For example,without a living wage, many people end up having to work more than one job to maintain a basic life. For a single person with no dependents, this probably doesn't have much impact on our overall society. But, for someone, such as a parent, the inability to be home with children can have far reaching consequences. There are studies upon studies that show the importance of parental presence and interaction upon a child's development and success in life. Sure, some children are able to develop inner strengths to successfully get them through the hardships that come along with an absent parent; but, on the other hand, some develop emotions that cause them to act-out negatively to the isolation. Either way, it's not right for children to have to experience the absence of a parent, and it's extra wrong for the city to be enforcing these barriers through unfair policy.
Obviously, passing the Fair Wages Act isn't going to magically alleviate poverty and it's consequences, but it's undeniably a part of the puzzle. Do the right thing, city government. Your concern should be your citizens, and this issue is about the most basic of our rights. The right to afford to live. If an incoming company who accepts our subsidies can't respect that, then I don't think they deserve our business.
Just a little addition to this post: there's a great video that The Catholic Campaign for Human Development put together that illustrates the kinds of hard budgeting choices that people living in poverty have to make every day. I encourage everyone to watch it: Poverty USA Tour
Last night, upon invitation from a friend who organizes for the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, I went up to the Covenant Baptist Church in Harlem to attend the Mass Meeting for Living Wages. As can be read in the article linked above,
"The meeting was billed as a tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the next step in the struggle to pass the Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act. For one evening the powerful coalition between clergy and labor that pushed the civil rights agenda forward was reunited."I'd never been to anything like this before, and daaaamn was it powerful and inspiring. Before this, I didn't even know about the Fair Wages Act, and honestly, it's appalling that there even has to be a fight for it.
Almost everyone I know living in this city has quipped at some point or another about how expensive it is to live here - and we all have comparatively well-paying jobs. While a larger percentage of our paychecks go towards rent here than it would if we lived in, say, Des Moines, IA, we still have enough cash leftover to save for the future and spend on non-necessities. Not far from our offices and apartments, "there are about 317,000 low-wage workers in New York City, and about one in five of these workers are paid less than the legally required minimum wage of $7.25 an hour." (source) Now, if all of these workers were just kids working an after-school or weekend job to save some extra cash, this statistic may not be such a big deal. However, the fact is, there are adults who rely on these jobs to support themselves, and sometimes their families too.
The Living Wage NYC site defines living wage as "a wage which is based upon the cost of living in an area, rather than an arbitrary minimum. Under an ideal living wage, someone who works an ordinary 40 hour per week job would be able to afford shelter, food, health care, and other basic necessities of life." According to the Living Wage Calculator, the Living Wage for one adult in New York County is $11.86/hr. New York State's minimum wage is $7.25/hr - which would be almost fine if you lived in Steuben County (closest "big" city is Utica!).
The New York Daily News says the Fair Wages Act would "require jobs at city-subsidized developments to pay $10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 without benefits." Later in the article they say "Mayor Bloomberg and business leaders [say] it would put a job-killing burden on businesses." And a Crain's New York Business article published on January 12 says "Bloomberg administration officials have consistently argued that tying wage requirements to subsidies would squash development."
As a New York City taxpayer, I find it rather deplorable that Bloomberg and friends think it's ok to use our money to subsidize businesses that don't want to pay their employees (our citizens) enough to be able to afford to live at the most basic level in the city in which they work (and may pay income and/or payroll taxes!). Also worth mentioning is that some (if not many) of these development projects are and would be things like shopping malls, which usually house businesses that are home-based in other states.
This is not a lot to ask, NYC Council and Mayor. In fact, it's not even enough. The without-benefits rate that's being requested here is still below the Living Wage rate. If passed, the new wage levels will not suddenly launch anyone into the middle class, but it will help the citizens of our city live a teeny bit less of a squeezed life.
Throughout the event last night, I kept thinking about the subject of my last blog post - connections. Many of the speakers talked about the ramifications unfair wages have on those who rely on them. These ramifications are all important players in the overall issue of poverty.
For example,without a living wage, many people end up having to work more than one job to maintain a basic life. For a single person with no dependents, this probably doesn't have much impact on our overall society. But, for someone, such as a parent, the inability to be home with children can have far reaching consequences. There are studies upon studies that show the importance of parental presence and interaction upon a child's development and success in life. Sure, some children are able to develop inner strengths to successfully get them through the hardships that come along with an absent parent; but, on the other hand, some develop emotions that cause them to act-out negatively to the isolation. Either way, it's not right for children to have to experience the absence of a parent, and it's extra wrong for the city to be enforcing these barriers through unfair policy.
Obviously, passing the Fair Wages Act isn't going to magically alleviate poverty and it's consequences, but it's undeniably a part of the puzzle. Do the right thing, city government. Your concern should be your citizens, and this issue is about the most basic of our rights. The right to afford to live. If an incoming company who accepts our subsidies can't respect that, then I don't think they deserve our business.
Just a little addition to this post: there's a great video that The Catholic Campaign for Human Development put together that illustrates the kinds of hard budgeting choices that people living in poverty have to make every day. I encourage everyone to watch it: Poverty USA Tour
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)