Many Americans find themselves asking this when discussing politics with others specifically with regards to Congress. Consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives our Congress takes on the challenge of solving our nation's problems by generating laws. They are meant to "refine and enhance" public opinion. But to do that [enhance public opinion] wouldn't they first need to be representative of our nation? How can Congress know the wishes and needs of America if some American voices aren't being heard?
There are 432 members in our House of Representatives and 100 in the Senate. According to the demographics found on Roll Call both houses are roughly 80% male yet according to the U.S. demographics in 2012 our nation was 50.8% female. Assuming a plague hasn't wiped out most of America's female population between then and now; women are grossly underrepresented with about 17.82% in the House of Representatives and 20% in our Congress. But the gender difference isn't the only way Congress misrepresents our diverse nation.
Using the 2012 estimates again we can see how one-sided our Congress appears in accordance to race. The U.S. population estimate for 2012 was 313,873,685; out of them about 63% were white (not Hispanic/Latino) while our current House of Representatives is almost 82% white and our Congress an overwhelming 94%! African Americans consisted of about 13% of the U.S. population in 2012 while only having about 9% representation in the House of Representatives and a measly 2% in the Senate. Hispanics made up almost 17% of the population yet only consist around 6.5% of the House of Representatives and 3% of the Senate. The Asian population made up about 5% of the population and less than 2% of the House of Representatives and only 1% of the Senate, meaning 1 senator represents approximately 16,007,560 people. Pacific Islanders were found in about 0.2% of the population and are probably the most accurately represented in the House of Representatives at 0.23% yet have no senators to speak of. While the American Indian population was six times more than Pacific Islander's they share the same amount of representation in Congress. With numbers like these is our House of Representatives truly living up to its name? And are all American voices being heard in the Senate? Can we trust that these men and women honestly have America's best interest in mind when making the laws that govern our country? Interestingly enough, the women in the House of Representatives most accurately represent the diversity of America. This more representative House shows a better "snapshot" of our nation as it were with about 63% white, almost 17% African American, almost 12% Hispanic, around 6.5% Asian, and about 1% Pacific Islander.
It's amusing to see how women are so exceptionally misrepresented in our Congress yet do a much better job of representing our nation as a whole in the House of Representatives. But the bigger question we need to be asking is does is it matter? Why can't our pale, male, and stale Congress do as good a job governing our nation as one that is truly 100% representative of our country? Why should these numbers matter? Do race and gender affect the decisions Congress makes? Are all American voices being heard? As an Asian male, is my voice being heard, do I matter? Yes I matter, but I why can't a white congresswoman represent me and act in my best interest. Maybe the answer is that I simply don't matter, in the grand scheme of things what may be best for me may not be best for the nation. I may matter as a person but if our Congress is worried about one person or even a handful of people and isn't thinking about the good of the whole of the nation then they aren't doing the job we, the general public, entrusted them with. Of course a white congresswoman would lead a very different life than I do with very different experiences but that shouldn't stop her from acting in my best interest. We have given all of our Congressmen and Congresswomen and important task: generating laws governing our country, and we need to trust that they will make the best decision for the good of our diverse nation, however underrepresented the different races seem to be. And should we find they are unable to, we must fulfill our duty as a citizen and vote those who are capable refining and enhancing the public opinion of America to advance our nation.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Friday, March 7, 2014
Yes I can!
Igor Volksy recently posted an article on Think Progress favoring an increase in the minimum wage using real world examples. One of the main arguments Republicans have against the increase is the fact that doing so would cost jobs. However Volksy, using hard evidence, has proved them wrong.
The minimum wage in Washington is $9.32, and in the 15-year period since the raise they have experienced a steady increase in employment. In 2004 San Francisco raised minimum wage finding similar results. While he brings up the argument that the Bay Area in San Francisco experienced a decrease in employment he goes on to mention the employment rate for restaurant workers increased and states that have raised the minimum wage generally show a decrease in unemployment rates. He argues that the increase shows people stay with their employer longer, exhibit an increase in productivity, and force businesses to find other places to cut costs. It is clear he is writing this to persuade Republicans, those opposing the increase, and the undecided/uninterested that an increase in minimum wage on the national level would be beneficial for people and their employment opportunities.
I agree that it would be beneficial to increase the minimum wage. It would help out lower income families not only financially but also in the workplace. Because workers would be able to live on their own or at the very least support their families, they would in turn be generally happier at their jobs therefore increasing productivity. Lower wages are a huge factor workers take into consideration when deciding whether or not their job is "worth it." If workers are paid more/fairly they are more likely to stay with their current employer. Also as a retail worker I highly believe in and encourage companies to find other ways to cut costs other than lowering (or paying low) wages. One way to cut costs, in my store, would be to make the most out of shipment boxes. For example, some days we will receive a single children's clip-on tie in a box that can easily hold around 50 pairs of denim. There are many other ways companies could minimize costs and still turn a profit should an increase in minimum wage happen without letting go of their current employees.
The minimum wage in Washington is $9.32, and in the 15-year period since the raise they have experienced a steady increase in employment. In 2004 San Francisco raised minimum wage finding similar results. While he brings up the argument that the Bay Area in San Francisco experienced a decrease in employment he goes on to mention the employment rate for restaurant workers increased and states that have raised the minimum wage generally show a decrease in unemployment rates. He argues that the increase shows people stay with their employer longer, exhibit an increase in productivity, and force businesses to find other places to cut costs. It is clear he is writing this to persuade Republicans, those opposing the increase, and the undecided/uninterested that an increase in minimum wage on the national level would be beneficial for people and their employment opportunities.
I agree that it would be beneficial to increase the minimum wage. It would help out lower income families not only financially but also in the workplace. Because workers would be able to live on their own or at the very least support their families, they would in turn be generally happier at their jobs therefore increasing productivity. Lower wages are a huge factor workers take into consideration when deciding whether or not their job is "worth it." If workers are paid more/fairly they are more likely to stay with their current employer. Also as a retail worker I highly believe in and encourage companies to find other ways to cut costs other than lowering (or paying low) wages. One way to cut costs, in my store, would be to make the most out of shipment boxes. For example, some days we will receive a single children's clip-on tie in a box that can easily hold around 50 pairs of denim. There are many other ways companies could minimize costs and still turn a profit should an increase in minimum wage happen without letting go of their current employees.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Can I afford it?
A question on many of our minds as we first step out into the "real world" and get that first job as a teenager in food or retail, or maybe as a child mowing lawns or babysitting. Another biting question would be: is it worth it? Too late do we come to realize our minimum wage job makes the dream of being independent and living on our own just that, a dream.
President Obama and congressional democrats have proposed to raise the minimum wage to $10.10/hour by 2016, a substantial difference to the current $7.25/hour. The editorial board of The New York Times have posted an editorial in favor of the increase despite the lack of support from Republicans. It is clear they intend to garner support mainly from U.S. workers currently earning low wages. Despite many negative opinions floating around the proposal (due to a theoretical loss of 500,000 jobs), the editorial board writes why the proposal would be an overall good by bringing 900,000 workers out of poverty, also by increasing wages for those earning above the minimum wage ("ripple effect"). The fear of job loss may not have any substance behind it as the number 500,000 is a median chosen from the predicted range of zero to one million. These figures coming from a report by the Congressional Budget Office, a report that in itself speaks highly of the increase. In respect to the job loss, we cannot be completely sure as to how companies would react to such an increase; would they fire current workers? Or simply find another way to cut costs and make ends meet? While it is true that many jobs may be lost with an increase in minimum wage, it is also true more jobs may be created as a result of people having more spending power and being able to declare yes, I can afford it.
I agree with the editorial board in saying that an increase in minimum wage would be an overall good. As written in the article most of the workers benefiting from the increase wouldn't be teenagers (maybe saving up for a new phone or a car) but adults 20 or older, possibly living paycheck-to-paycheck, struggling to afford rent and keep up with the rising cost of living and more than half of them employed full-time.
President Obama and congressional democrats have proposed to raise the minimum wage to $10.10/hour by 2016, a substantial difference to the current $7.25/hour. The editorial board of The New York Times have posted an editorial in favor of the increase despite the lack of support from Republicans. It is clear they intend to garner support mainly from U.S. workers currently earning low wages. Despite many negative opinions floating around the proposal (due to a theoretical loss of 500,000 jobs), the editorial board writes why the proposal would be an overall good by bringing 900,000 workers out of poverty, also by increasing wages for those earning above the minimum wage ("ripple effect"). The fear of job loss may not have any substance behind it as the number 500,000 is a median chosen from the predicted range of zero to one million. These figures coming from a report by the Congressional Budget Office, a report that in itself speaks highly of the increase. In respect to the job loss, we cannot be completely sure as to how companies would react to such an increase; would they fire current workers? Or simply find another way to cut costs and make ends meet? While it is true that many jobs may be lost with an increase in minimum wage, it is also true more jobs may be created as a result of people having more spending power and being able to declare yes, I can afford it.
I agree with the editorial board in saying that an increase in minimum wage would be an overall good. As written in the article most of the workers benefiting from the increase wouldn't be teenagers (maybe saving up for a new phone or a car) but adults 20 or older, possibly living paycheck-to-paycheck, struggling to afford rent and keep up with the rising cost of living and more than half of them employed full-time.
Friday, February 7, 2014
"Against Their Conscience"
Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby have both filed cases wanting an exemption from including contraceptive services in their employee's health plan based on religious grounds. The New York Times posted an editorial anticipating the "showdown" on March 25.
The editorial states the Supreme Court will have to decide whether or not this contraceptive condition breaks an act passed in 1993 granting more religious freedom. Both companies argue that including cost-free contraceptive services infringes on their religious liberty by forcing them to act against their conscience (beliefs). However the Obama administration argues the condition does not go as far as to violate the act as it does not rise "to a 'substantial burden' on religious expression." Another argument being whether corporations can be considered the "persons" protected by the act. Though a separation between church and state may prove a decisive factor in the case (as it would argue religious freedom for employees) it appears as though this argument has taken a backseat among the back and forth between the parties.
I am personally for the use of contraceptives even though it goes against my religious beliefs. I feel we need to take interest in this case as it could spell out how much power religion may gain over government again. I understand the religious stance against birth control but in a world ruled by sex and its consequences (disease and overpopulation) I honestly consider birth control as a valid service needing to be fully covered by health plans. We are granted religious freedom by the Constitution and these companies are infringing on this right by trying to invalidate the coverage of contraceptive use from their health plans thus forcing [the companies] religious views onto [its] employees.
The editorial states the Supreme Court will have to decide whether or not this contraceptive condition breaks an act passed in 1993 granting more religious freedom. Both companies argue that including cost-free contraceptive services infringes on their religious liberty by forcing them to act against their conscience (beliefs). However the Obama administration argues the condition does not go as far as to violate the act as it does not rise "to a 'substantial burden' on religious expression." Another argument being whether corporations can be considered the "persons" protected by the act. Though a separation between church and state may prove a decisive factor in the case (as it would argue religious freedom for employees) it appears as though this argument has taken a backseat among the back and forth between the parties.
I am personally for the use of contraceptives even though it goes against my religious beliefs. I feel we need to take interest in this case as it could spell out how much power religion may gain over government again. I understand the religious stance against birth control but in a world ruled by sex and its consequences (disease and overpopulation) I honestly consider birth control as a valid service needing to be fully covered by health plans. We are granted religious freedom by the Constitution and these companies are infringing on this right by trying to invalidate the coverage of contraceptive use from their health plans thus forcing [the companies] religious views onto [its] employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)