Anyone in the United States who works for a living should not have to raise a family in poverty. As of 1997, 7.3 million families in the U.S. live in poverty; 65 percent of these families include one or more members who work. Twenty-two percent of the country’s poor families have at least one family member holding a full-time job.

Minimum wage laws have been in existence for over 88 years. The national minimum wage was raised to $5.15 in September 1997. The real buying power of the minimum wage after adjusting for inflation was still 31 percent below its peak in 1968. Even at $5.15 an hour, someone who works full-time for 50 weeks would earn only $10,300 a year, which is below the 1998 national poverty threshold for a family of two of $11,235.

A single mother with one child could not keep herself and her child out of poverty through minimum wage earnings. What about a “traditional” family with one minimum wage worker, one homemaker, and two children? With the family’s one worker earning $10,300, the family would fall nearly 40 percent below the official poverty threshold of $16,530 for a four-person family. Yes, the family would be eligible to receive earned income tax credit, food stamps, and Medicaid. However, the need for such programs to support a family that includes a full-time worker emphasizes the fact that the national minimum wage, even after the recent increase, is not even close to being a living wage.

The most dramatic change in overall economic condition is the decline of average wages, not just for minimum wage workers but for all workers below supervisory level.

The decline in average wages also reflects an increasing concentration of wealth and income that has accompanied it. In 1968, the income of the richest 5 percent of households was 16 times greater than the poorest 20 percent. In 1994, the income of the richest 5 percent of households had grown to a level 24 times greater than the poorest 20 percent.

Since the early 1980s, city governments have pursued “urban development” policies that actively seek to attract businesses to locate within their cities by offering subsidies and other entitlements. Major financial resources (including tax dollars) have been devoted to these efforts. In 1993, Mercedes-Benz located just outside of Birmingham, Alabama. The company received a subsidy package amounting to a projected $168,000 per job, with no penalty for Mercedes if it fails to create the number of jobs it has promised to provide. Policies such as this, as a whole, have not succeeded in creating new jobs, reducing urban/rural poverty, or uplifting declining urban or rural communities.

Despite rapid economic growth and low unemployment in 1997, the U. S. Conference of Mayors found that requests for emergency food had risen by 16 percent relative to 1996, the largest increase in five years. The mayors cited low wages as a major cause of the surging demand for emergency food.

National economic policy has also been skewed toward the rich. Wall Street’s political agenda dominates Federal Reserve policy, and the Federal Reserve in turn is the predominate force in formulating and implementing national economic policy.

What is Wall Street’s agenda? Wall Street’s fundamental commitment is to prevent workers from getting enough bargaining power to force up wages and garner a larger share of the national income. This commitment is often expressed in terms of a fear of low unemployment.

The living wage quest is committed to reversing the economy-wide wage squeeze, stopping tax giveaways to big business, re-energizing the labor movement, and ending the war on the poor. The quest for a living wage is thus the quest for family values: the value of adult workers raising children in decent circumstances without having to depend on government subsidies.

In closing I would like to quote Deuteronomy 24:14 – “ Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy.”