I believe the Democrats' biggest weakness is their lack of marketing skills. Traditional Democrats (and by traditional I'm not including those that have sold out to the monied powers) have long had the best interests of the community at large in mind and it makes little sense that so many in the upper middle class, middle class, and lower socioeconomic groups would support the Republicans instead, except that Democrats are just plain shitty at explaining and selling their concepts.
I believe the effort to raise the minimum wage is one where they're failing sadly. They're doing what they usually do - trying to sell the argument to those who already agree, whether from self interest or from simply caring about those at the bottom. What they fail to do is to sell to the huge swath of people who care much more about the benefit to themselves and who have little to no interest in society as a whole. The people that the Republicans are so great at convincing.
I'd like to suggest that people approach the concept of raising the minimum wage from an aspect that will sell to those large swaths of people - and that means telling them what's in it for them. Give them something to think about from their own perspective, something they can bring into a discussion with their similar friends that will be found convincing. We need to quit talking about "fairness" or "living wage" or the other phrases that so many progressives find satisfying and instead talk "taxes" and a reduction in government spending. We talk about how much more in taxes people earning minimum wage would pay if they were being paid a reasonable wage and how much we're being taxed so that businesses can continue paying so little. We also talk about how many government programs could be reduced or eliminated if those earning minimum wage didn't need so much assistance. We emphasize how each taxpayer is obligated to subsidize every business that underpays their workers.
With that thought in mind, I did some rough tax calculations for two scenarios for two families. The first is a single parent of one child who works full time for minimum wage, the second is a couple with two children, one parent working full time and one working 20 hours per week at minimum wage, using the 2013 tax tables. My numbers are rough, and there are factors that could affect the bottom line of these figures, but the general concept would apply regardless.
Under our current tax system, if the minimum wage was $15.00 an hour versus the current $7.35 an hour, in both scenarios, the difference in federal taxes would be between $7,000 and $8,000 per year. Yes, you read that right. The increase in the amount the federal government would receive in each of those scenarios would be between $7,000 and $8,000 dollars. Per tax return. And the state governments would, of course, also receive an increase.
Under either of these scenarios, neither family would owe any federal taxes under our current minimum wage. None. They would not be obligated to contribute anything to the costs incurred by our society to operate as a society. In fact, they would both instead be entitled to receive an earned income credit, and would receive a sizable refund even if they'd never had anything withheld from their pay. Under the increased minimum wage, neither would be entitled to an earned income credit and both would have to actually pay some amount in federal taxes. That alone makes a difference of several thousand dollars in tax savings to the federal government - and all other taxpayers. Beginning in 2014, it would save even more because they would be entitled to much less in insurance premium subsidies.
In addition, the increase in FICA withholdings would "save" Social Security and Medicare. Not only would the contributions of minimum wage earners to each of these programs more than double, but so would the contributions made by their employers. The resulting increase in monies coming into those programs would then ensure their sustainability and self sufficiency. (Particularly since, even when receiving payments, the payments don't increase as quickly as the taxes do when different levels of income are compared.)
Those facts alone tell us that US taxpayers are consistently subsidizing the low pay offered by businesses in this country. The only way they can continue to offer such low pay and have people be able to accept it is because we all have to pay higher taxes in order to allow the government to pay these employees some additional amount through an earned income credit. Without that, they would simply not be able to survive.
However, the cost of subsidizing these low wages doesn't end there for taxpayers. Rather, the government has to step in with additional programs to enable these employees to survive. Food stamps, housing assistance, energy assistance, real property tax credits - all could be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, if people were receiving a reasonable minimum wage. Particularly if this change was accompanied by a significant increase in the minimum SSI payment the retired or disabled are entitled to receive.
I believe the minimum payment right now is something slightly over $600 a month. It's simply not possible to survive on $600 a month unless you're relying on the generosity of other family or charity. As a result, most SSI recipients also qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, etc. And still often have to choose between food and medicine. If that minimum payment was doubled or more, to a figure that would allow people to survive on the payment alone, think of how, when coupled with an increase in minimum wage, the need for food stamps, etc would be greatly reduced.
Once that need is reduced, these programs can be reduced. That saves not only the expenditure of each program, but also the expenses of running the program itself. Think of the amount of money that the government would save every year as these programs are drastically reduced - some perhaps even eliminated. Once again, the taxpayers could quit subsidizing the businesses.
There will always be those who would need help - those who are chronically unemployed or who are unable to work for reasons that don't qualify them for disability. However, the programs would not need to be so extensive as they must now be.
Furthermore, this system enables workers to develop pride and confidence in themselves - something Republicans are always preaching about, right? Right now, people earning minimum wage can simply not survive without the earned income credit, food stamps and other assistance from the government. They must accept it to survive and most of the people they deal with on a daily basis also must accept it to survive. It seems impossible to imagine not needing that assistance. And so it becomes a part of their lives and a part of their psyche. It's hard to set a goal to not need assistance when there seems to be no avenue to reaching that point. It's hard to feel a sense of pride and a desire to not take assistance when that assistance is the only way to survive. But if needing such assistance was the exception rather than the rule, more people could find that sense of pride and determination. Something must seem possible before it can become a goal. And so a minimum wage would decrease the "dependency" of people on the government, one of the Republicans' spouted desires.
"Yes, that might be", they'll shout, "but everything will cost so much more if minimum wage is increased." But think about it. If the cost of a Big Mac goes from $3.50 to $4.50 or a pair of tennis shoes goes from $50.00 to $60.00 because of the increase in cost of labor (both of which examples are probably quite exaggerated from what would actually happen), think of the savings in taxes we'd all be able to enjoy because businesses are covering the costs of their business themselves, rather than requiring the government and taxpayers to subsidize them. We can cover those slight increases in the costs of goods and services with all the tax savings we each experience. Furthermore, you're paying this difference right now - only you're paying it even if you don't buy the Big Mac or the tennis shoes. You're paying it through the additional taxes you have to pay because these workers can't.
I used the figure of $15.00 an hour because I believe that's pretty much the minimum that is needed for a modicum of financial security. I realize it couldn't (or at least wouldn't) increase that much immediately, even if people bought into this argument, but I do believe that if Democrats began pointing out all the ways in which the taxpayers are now subsidizing the low wages businesses are paying, and make each person start thinking about how they're paying for Big Macs and tennis shoes even when they're not buying them, it might get a lot more people thinking about this issue than will all the talking about "living wages" or the individual stories of people trying so hard to survive under minimum wage. The truth of the matter is that a lot of people are inherently self centered and the only time they pay attention to anything is if they believe it's going to directly affect them.
I believe that if Democrats would work on their marketing skills, and develop a set like the Republicans developed long ago, on other issues as well, we could be winning every election by landslides. The concepts of the Democrats are what have the potential of keeping this country strong for a long time to come. But Republicans have been successful in developing and controlling the narrative and therefore a large percentage of Americans have been conned into voting against their own best interests. Democrats need to worry about gerrymandering and voter suppression. But I believe what they really need to focus on is thinking through the long term results of their policies and then figuring out how to present those results to the public in an understandable and broad manner. Even many Democrats seem to think along a very narrow line. They get one argument for a policy and hammer on that, even when they know it's not appealing to people. They need to think about what most people are likely to respond to and change their arguments, take control of the language being used, and help people to understand how the Republicans are harming them and the Democrats would help them. They should be working on tying the concept of "low minimum wage" to "taxpayer subsidies to McDonalds". With some good marketing, I think you'd see the support for raising the minimum wage skyrocket - at least using as examples those with whom I've raised this argument.