This is my weekly column for the Sunday, Aug. 10, 2008 Hibbing Daily Tribune.
Same now as it ever was
By Aaron J. Brown
Most people know the political tradition here on the Iron Range: Independent, but generally Democratic, and heavily influenced by the past and present labor movement.Sadly, it’s almost impossible to talk about politics and history without some people raising their partisan hackles, sharpened so harshly by the cable news sensibility of our times. Try to suspend partisan bias for a moment.
The Iron Range political tradition grew out of the historic struggle between unskilled immigrant workers and the mining and logging companies that prospered using their labor. Interestingly, the Iron Range of the early 1900s up until Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was, like the rest of Minnesota then, solidly Republican. Most immigrants couldn’t vote and those who could, along with skilled native laborers, businesspeople and the editors of papers like the Mesaba Ore all voted alike. The tradition of that time was to preserve the mining companies, and everyone’s jobs and family, by voting the way the mining companies recommended – for pro-business candidates who would discourage unions and preserve commerce above all else.
That’s why our region went overwhelmingly for GOP corporate favorite Warren Harding in 1920, a man who, according to the recent book, “The Teapot Dome Scandal” by Laton McCartney, was recruited by corporate interests to remain clueless about corruption in his administration once elected so that his appointees could conduct favors for the oil industry. (I’ll let you construct your own modern parallels on that one). After Harding’s fatal heart attack in 1923, Minnesota went Republican again in 1924 for “Silent” Cal Coolidge, who once visited Hibbing and remarked that the Hull Rust mine pit was an “awfully big hole,” and yet again for Republican Herbert Hoover in 1928.
History allows us the hindsight to say that the voters of Minnesota and the Iron Range should have seen the economic collapse of the Great Depression coming and the corruption that marred this time in American politics. But the greater problem of that time was not partisan (indeed, plenty of corrupt Democrats participated in the process, too). No, I wouldn’t write this if it were simply a notable observation from history. Today’s headlines may be delivered to our e-mail inboxes, heralded across a network lightning fast network of computers, but they tell a starkly similar story.
For instance, last week we heard reports about Wal-Mart, a company that, like the mining companies of the early 20th century, opposes unions in its workforce. Wal-Mart recently issued a recommendation to its managers to “discourage” the passage of a law making it easier to form labor unions. Some of the reports quoted managers who heard veiled language implying that employees should be specifically discouraged against voting for presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama, who supports the pro-labor law. Wal-Mart issued statements correcting that it does not tell employees how to vote, but its opposition to unions remains clear. Similar interests are spending millions trying to discourage union formation by spreading misleading political ads in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race.
The parallels between the stories of mining camps of the 1920s and the folks who clock in at our local Wal-Mart or other big box stores are amazing. No, they’re not obvious. There’s a big difference between the kind of work done by 1916 miners and 2008 Wal-Mart cashiers. But the role these jobs play are the same: they are the jobs done by people starting out, raising young families, especially by those who weren’t promised any favors at birth.
Important in all this is how today’s partisan labels are equally irrelevant to the hard truth of how the world really operates. This isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican thing; it’s a powerful vs. powerless thing. The structure of our society is rapidly becoming more similar to the 1920s: a few rich, powerful people at the top, a relatively small group of hangers-on who support the upper crust, then a vast collection of people living paycheck to paycheck in the middle, and finally a huge, undocumented mass of people living below the poverty line.
And yet here we are, arguing about drilling for oil and how the estate tax hurts the “little guy who happens to be a millionaire.” The ghost of Warren Harding has risen. How will we vote this time?
America, and especially the Iron Range, prospers only when the middle class is growing, poverty is subsiding, and when most citizens regard such events as universally good. In this, the interests of hungry, up-and-coming citizens willing to work their way up must be reconciled with those of the powerful companies who rely on their toil.
It is the same now as it ever was.
Where is this “huge, undocumented mass of people living below the poverty line.” Last time I checked even the “poor” people in America are living good. There are a few people that are down and out, but for the most part everybody I see is doing well.
C.O.
Hey C.O. —
Yeah, we’ve talked about this. I know that “poverty” today isn’t the same as “poverty” in the 1920s. There is a major quality of life difference, but the income curve more closely resembles that of the 1920s, which is troubling because it keeps the money up at the top where it self-generates artificial “paper” numbers and out of the lower and middle income brackets where it generates real growth. And there are lots of people living off the radar with very little money. They might have TVs, but you wouldn’t want to swap lives with them.
The poor today mostly have electric lights and indoor plumbing. We are all doing pretty well compared to folks in the 1820’s, when even the rich lacked such luxuries.
Last time I checked even the “poor” people in America are living good.
I suggest you try looking a little harder.
I guess the problem I have with the unionization effort against Walmart is the main players for it are the union leadership themselves. The individual workers get very little benefit. When I was in high school 11 years ago, I worked as a cashier at a local unionized grocery store. If I remember correctly, the minimum wage at the time was $5.15 per hour. I received $6.50 per hour as a “union bagger”. I had a friend who worked at Walmart. He earned $5.60 per hour there. After union dues were taken out of my paycheck, my real wages were something like $5.95. So here I was as a 17 or 18 year old basically giving $.55 per hour to whatever union I was a member of in the name of getting me a “living wage”. True, I did get a few cents more per hour than my friend did. But it is disingenuous at best to suggest that as a high school kid with very little valuable business skills I should be paid a living wage. And because of the higher wages paid to what were mostly high school kids, my store was forced to charge higher prices to their customers.
No, I wouldn’t trade places with somebody who is living in what is considered “poverty” in America. That’s why I went to college and have worked hard in numerous places around the country since to make myself more valuable to potential employers or potential customers. I’m to the point now where I feel comfortable enough to move back to Northern Minnesota (which I will be doing very soon) and will be able to earn a good living.
If “poverty” in America consists of running water, a home or apartment with heating or air conditioning, cable tv in many cases, and more than enough food, I think we are doing pretty darn well. With the availability of a fairly good high school education just about anywhere and plenty of scholarship and college loan programs, just about anybody who is willing to put in the effort can get a post secondary education as well. Now one may not be able to find a great job in ten mile radius of their home town as soon as they finish college, but one will almost always be able to find a decent job if they are willing to move away. When I look back at my high school classmates, the ones who are living at or near the “poverty” line, they either had a kid just out of high school or had alcohol/drug issues.
I guess my point is to say that being a cashier at Walmart was never designed to be a wage that provided for the entire family.
“I guess my point is to say that being a cashier at Walmart was never designed to be a wage that provided for the entire family.”
Of course it wasn’t. It was designed so Walmart would get the maximum profit by letting someone else pay to support that cashier and their family.
But it is disingenuous at best to suggest that as a high school kid with very little valuable business skills I should be paid a living wage.
Its disingenuous to suggest that the union only represents high school kids. But its even more disingenuous to suggest anyone should have to work for less than a living wage. Even if they don’t need the money to live on, they are competing in the market place with people who do.
So here I was as a 17 or 18 year old basically giving $.55 per hour to whatever union I was a member of in the name of getting me a “living wage”.
Your net profit from that $.55 per hour was .$35. That is a pretty high margin. And most folks in that income range would really welcome the extra $60 per month that would give them.
Of course, you clearly weren’t working 40 hours per week. Because I don’t think any union is charging workers at that pay level anything like the $100 per month in dues it would take to make your dues $.55 per hour.
True, I did get a few cents more per hour than my friend did.
And your friend got a few cents more per hour because Walmart is trying to avoid having a union.
And because of the higher wages paid to what were mostly high school kids, my store was forced to charge higher prices to their customers.
Yep. It would be best for their customers and stockholders if everyone would work for free. That’s why there are unions to look out for workers.
If “poverty” in America consists of running water, a home or apartment with heating or air conditioning, cable tv in many cases, and more than enough food, I think we are doing pretty darn well.
You need to get out more, because poverty does not consist of those things. In fact, the only reason we don’t have shanty towns in the United States is that we tear down homes that people try to build without running water or electricity. If we allowed them, these would be springing up all over the place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity_Village
I get out plenty. I’ve done volunteer work with my church in South Dallas and North Minneapolis before that.
And besides, that’s not what I’m talking about people like those in “Dignity Village” when talking about poverty. The people who live on the street are doing so either because of choice (90%) or mental illness (10%). If people aren’t willing to work and aren’t willing to stay in a homeless shelter, there is very little to nothing the private sector, the government, you, or I can do about it.
Anybody in America who chooses to not to live on the street will have electricity and running water. Anybody who works (maybe not the exact job one wants) will at least be able to afford an apartment, basic utilites, and food. Even those evil, non-union workers at Walmart. The vast majority who put effort into improving themselves and is willing to go above and beyond what is expected can do a lot more.