home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Inside the New Print Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
How the TV Networks Became Drug Peddlers
The corrupt relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the major TV networks makes a sick joke of the notion of an independent press. Nothing more blatantly displays its role as corporate whore. Alexander Cockburn traces the slimy ties. ALSO, He’s the man for whom Rush Limbaugh threw over for Sarah Palin. Donald Juneau investigates the short career of Republican Bobby Jindal. ALSO, One of America’s greatest environmental writers, the legendary Doug Peacock, gives CounterPunchers a brilliant history of the Yellowstone River country. Get your new edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great presents.
|
Today's Stories March 6-8 , 2009 Chris Floyd Uri Avnery David Ker Thomson March 5 , 2009 James G. Abourezk Kathleen and Bill Christison Robert Weissman Patrick Cockburn William Blum Robert Fantina Saul Landau Benjamin Dangl Christopher Brauchli Website of the Day March 4, 2009 Marjorie Cohn Mike Whitney Ron Jacobs Ashley Smith Joanne Mariner Dan Bacher Mark Engler Franklin Lamb Cal Winslow David Mandelzys Website of the Day March 3, 2009 Conn Hallinan Fawzia Afzal-Khan Brian M. Downing Robert Larson Daniel P. Wirt, MD Russell Mokhiber William Loren Katz Kathy Sanborn Pauline Imbach Christopher Ketcham Website of the Day March 2, 2009 Andrea Peacock Paul Craig Roberts Peter Lee John Blair Peter Morici Uri Avnery Michael Donnelly Fred Gardner Sonia Nettnin Andrew Lehman Website of the Day
Feb. 27 - March 1, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Harry Browne Anthony DiMaggio Sasan Fayazmanesh Mischa Gaus Felice Pace Mike Whitney Lee Sustar Peter Lee Nicole Colson Roger Burbach Rannie Amiri Missy Beattie Dave Lindorff Robert David Steele Vivas John Ross Ralph Nader Yves Engler Alan Farago Zulfikar Majid David Yearsley Charles R. Larson Kim Nicolini Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend February 26, 2009 Dave Lindorff Jonathan Cook Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Eamonn McCann Tim Wise Tom Barry Harvey Wasserman Adam Turl David Macaray James McEnteer Website of the Day
February 25, 2009 Chris Sands M. Shahid Alam Chris Floyd Dave Lindorff Norman Solomon Rachel Godfrey Wood Niranjan Ramakrishnan Ron Jacobs Nadia Hijab Dennis Loo Website of the Day February 24, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Uri Avnery Peter Morici Jonathan Cook Paul Fitzgerald / Andy Worthington Brian Horejsi Julia Stein Norm Kent Rachel Smolker / Dennis Loo James McEnteer Website of the Day February 23, 2009 Michael Hudson Mike Roselle Patrick Cockburn Franklin Spinney Einar Már Guðmundsson Ralph Nader Jordan Flaherty Helen Redmond Dennis Loo Harvey Wasserman Terry Lodge Website of the Day February 20 / 22, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Michael Neumann / Ismael Hossein-zadeh Paul Craig Roberts Linn Washington Jr. Saul Landau Marjorie Cohn Binoy Kampmark Dave Lindorff David Yearsley David Macaray James McEnteer Rick Salutin Wayne Clark Richard Rhames Stephen Martin Mitu Sengupta Charles R. Larson Richard Morse Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend February 19, 2009 Norman Finkelstein Harry Browne Robert Bryce Brian M. Downing Fred Gardner Andy Worthington Wajahat Ali Laura Carlsen Deb Reich Christopher Ketcham Website of the Day February 18, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Mike Whitney M. Shahid Alam Patrick Cockburn Conn Hallinan Dave Lindorff Rannie Amiri Gareth Porter Eric Hobsbawm Christopher Brauchli Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day February 17, 2009 Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Ralph Nader Joanne Mariner John Ross Belén Fernández Mats Svensson David Macaray Gregory Vickrey M. Junaid Levesque-Alam Michael Dickinson Website of the Day February 16, 2009 Patrick Cockburn Oscar Guardiola-Rivera Paul Craig Roberts Uri Avnery P. Sainath Dedrick Muhammad / Michael Brown Carla Blank Patrick Irelan Dan Bacher Fidel Castro Harvey Wasserman Website of the Day February 13 - 15, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Joshua Frank Mike Whitney George Ciccariello-Maher Nikolas Kozloff Brian M. Downing Paul Craig Roberts Christopher Ketcham Ron Jacobs Dave Lindorff Alan Maass Chuck Spinney Phil Gasper Stephen Lendman Charles Thomson Kathy Sanborn Saul Landau Len Wengraf Harvey Wasserman David Macaray Tom Stephens Seth Sandronsky David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
|
Weekend Edition Higher Pay Equals Higher ProductivityThe Minimum Wage RevisitedBy DAVID MACARAY In 1938, the first federal minimum wage was established. It was set at 25-cents per hour. Not surprisingly, business groups and industrialists protested strenuously not only at having to pay so exorbitant a rate, but at the federal government’s naked attempt (as they saw it) to “Stalinize” the American economy. The next year, 1939, the minimum was raised to 30-cents. By March of 1956, it had crept up to a landmark $1.00 per hour; in May of 1974, it reached $2.00; and by the time Ronald Reagan took office, in 1981, it had risen to $3.35. Notably, it was under President Reagan that the ratio between the minimum wage and the average worker’s wage began to grow. Today, although the federal minimum is $6.55, the gap between the minimum wage and the wage of the average worker continues to widen. In 1968, the minimum wage represented 53-percent of the average worker’s hourly wage; by 2006 it had dropped to 31-percent—this despite the fact that the average worker’s wage, in real dollars, had, itself, declined significantly. On July 24, 2009, the federal minimum will be raised by seventy cents, to $7.25 per hour. Let’s do the math. Under the new rate, if you work eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, never take vacation or miss even one day due to illness or family emergency, you will earn $15, 080. After state and federal taxes, social security, FDIC, et al, have been deducted, it’s hard to say how much actual cash you would take home, but, obviously, since what you started with was so little, what you’re left with won’t be much. Moreover, that $15,000 pre-deduction figure could be more wishful thinking than economic reality, as many of those full-time, 40-hour a week jobs have dried up. Thirty-hour a week jobs are becoming more common. Some people—libertarians, hope-to-die conservatives, free market fundamentalists—believe we shouldn’t have anything remotely resembling a federal minimum wage, that the supply-and-demand dynamics of the marketplace should be the sole arbiter. On the other side, you have progressives saying that, if you’re going to institute such a thing as a minimum wage, the least you can do is make it realistic: Make it the minimum income on which an average person can actually live. Arguably, a minimum wage that doesn’t supply the necessary minimum—doesn’t allow one to make the barest living—is more a mathematical construct, a “gimmick,” than a living wage. As the Unitarian Church aptly summarized it, “the current federal minimum [wage] is a poverty wage, not an anti-poverty wage.” But if we’re talking about a living wage, what would that minimum be? By definition, wouldn’t it have to be the amount required for a single person to live independently at what is, more or less, a bare subsistence level: a tiny apartment, transportation to and from work, utilities, food, toiletries and clothing? While one might be able to pay for “luxuries” such as DVD rentals, cable TV, the Internet or telephone, it’s unlikely a minimum wage earner could afford a car, car insurance or car maintenance. Needless to say, health insurance is out of the question. And, if you start adding dependents to the equation—if you’re a family with kids, or a single mom requiring child-care—you can forget about it. Some would argue that the aforementioned scenario is too bleak and despairing. They would argue that, to be able to purchase material goods, people don’t necessarily have to be able to afford those goods. They don’t need a commensurate income. All they require is credit. Unfortunately, there’s a rebuttal to the argument that free and easy credit has no downside, and it can be expressed in two words: Brutal Recession. Which brings us to organized labor. People need to be reminded that America’s most prosperous period, the post-war 1950s (and into the ‘60s), happened to be the same period when the greatest number of America’s workers—approximately 35-percent—belonged to labor unions. Was that a coincidence? When we say “most prosperous,” we’re not speaking of the wealthiest Americans (the top 2-3-percent), those who are doing far better today than at any time in the country’s post-war history. Rather, we’re talking about the middle-class, the vast segment of the population that was thriving in the 1950s—who could not only buy material goods, but could actually afford them. Unfortunately, that same middle-class began shrinking under the Reagan administration and, alas, has continued to shrink. A proposal: Instead of relying on an artificial device called the Federal Minimum Wage (intended to insure that low-wage workers “maintain contact” with the economy), why not keep the Feds out of it entirely? Why not look to labor and management to reach an equilibrium? Instead of mandating government minimums which don’t—and never will—provide an actual living wage, we should allow what conservatives themselves call the “inherent wisdom” of the marketplace to prevail. Allow management and labor to sit down at the table and trust the “wisdom” of the collective bargaining process to lead them to the Promised Land, to a wage/benefit package suitable to both. It goes without saying that for this arrangement to be effective we’ll need more labor union members, because what used to be a robust 35-percent now stands at a puny 12.4-percent. The benefits of union membership should be readily apparent. All one has to do is look around and survey the condition of our “union deficient” landscape. There’s always been this nagging belief out there that labor unions are somehow bad for the economy. That’s a myth. It’s corporate-sponsored propaganda. Unions might be a threat to management autocracy, and harmful to management greed, but they’re certainly not harmful to commerce. Indeed, commerce loves them. Economists and progressive business groups (yes, business groups) have acknowledged that higher wages help the economy by increasing the purchasing power of the consumers. After all, who’s going to buy the stuff available, if the number of flush consumers keeps diminishing? As George Meany famously said, “The greatest anti-poverty program ever invented was the labor union.” It’s also been demonstrated that higher wages (union wages) result in greater productivity and lower employee turnover. It’s an undeniable fact: good pay and good benefits attract a higher caliber of worker than lousy wages and lousy benefits. So, besides supplying businesses with more qualified, more stable employees, labor unions create more personal wealth across-the-board. Those bumper-stickers you still occasionally see aren’t lying: “Live Better. Work Union.” It’s true. David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright (“Borneo Bob,” “Larva Boy”) and writer, was a former labor rep. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net |
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Waiting for
Lightning
|