Even in Palin Country, Raising the Minimum Wage Is Wildly Popular

With Congress paralyzed, 5 more states will let voters settle the issue.

<a href=:"http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-194431511/stock-photo-hand-put-coins-to-stack-of-coins-on-white-background.html?src=fE5bnlDsNGTyFLjEALpVrQ-1-11">vipman</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


For Democrats, 2014 was supposed to be the year of the minimum wage. President Obama used his State of the Union speech earlier this year to urge Congress to bump the federal rate up to $10.10 an hour. “Congress needs to get on board,” he said. “Today, the federal minimum wage is worth about 20 percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here.”

Yet there is little hope that Congress will raise the minimum wage, stalled at $7.25 per hour since July 2009, anytime soon. In April, thanks to a Senate GOP filibuster, the Minimum Wage Fairness Act failed on a 54-42 vote—Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was the only Republican willing to break party lines to support the measure. That’s unlikely to change in the near term, with Republicans poised to keep the House and possibly win control of the Senate.

But while DC dilly-dallies, the states have taken it upon themselves to boost the fortunes of the working poor—and not just the typical liberal redoubts. Twenty-three states already have moved past the federal rate, and this November, voters in five more will have a chance to follow suit.

In Illinois, voters will weigh in on whether the current rate of $8.25 per hour should be increased to $10. Nebraska’s measure would bump the state’s rate to $9 starting by 2016. In Arkansas—currently one of three states where the regional minimum wage is still set below the federal level—a ballot measure would set the state on a path to surpass the federal rate by 25 cents next year and then boost its rate to $8.50 by 2017. South Dakota’s would bump it to $8.50 in January, with automatic increases for inflation.

In Alaska, minimum wage is set at 50 cents above the federal level, thanks to a law from the state’s early days. But a coalition of labor groups has managed to field an initiative that would raise it to $8.75 by early next year and $9.75 in early 2016, with future increases for inflation. (Or in the unlikely event that DC boosts the federal minimum into that range, Alaska would add $1 to the federal rate and call it a day—whichever outcome pays the best.)

Roughly 5 percent of America’s hourly adult workers nationally make minimum wage, a slice that skews young and female. Alaska liberals are therefore hopeful that the state’s wildly popular minimum wage measure—polling shows likely voters 58-33 in favor—along with a pot legalization initiative on the November ballot will drive turnout among demographics that will support Sen. Mark Begich’s reelection campaign.

Republicans haven’t run into much trouble opposing the minimum wage at the federal level, turning it instead into a states’ rights issue. But it’s harder for politicians to argue against state measures. During a GOP Senate primary debate in August, Republican Dan Sullivan opposed the Alaska wage measure to preserve his conservative bona fides and then dropped his opposition after gaining his party’s nomination. On Monday, Sullivan completed his flip-flop, saying he plans to vote for the state initiative—although he says, if elected to the Senate, he would vote against raising the federal minimum to $10.10.

So far, no group has even registered to lobby against the state measure. “It’s been very quiet,” says Ed Flanagan, a former state labor commissioner and chair of Alaskans for a Fair Minimum Wage, the initiative’s primary booster. “But we’re running like we have opposition…There’s always a chance the Koch brothers or [Karl] Rove could decide to divert some of the ads they’ve already bought to try and suppress any perceived turnout due to minimum wage.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate