2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Progressive Pragmatism versus Liberal Elitism [View all]Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Fact is, we're looking at a congress that thinks the minimum wage itself ought to be abolished. $12, $15, or maggieD's $500 are all equally "realistic" with the likes of Paul Ryan holding the gavel.
And I'm afraid that no, Clinton did not call for a living wage. A living wage would have mandated cost-of-living adjustments. Clinton has called for a $12 minimum wage, with the hand-wave that local governments can expand on that as they see fit. Of course, local governments can already expand on the federal minimum... and most aren't doing so. No reason to think they'll do so for a $12 minimum.
So why a $12 minimum? Really. It's not more imminently achievable than $15, any more than it is less achievable than $9. She could have joined with the other Democrats and workers and unions, and lend her weight to the $15 movement. A united front, making achievement that much more likely.
Instead she stuck her foot out and tried to trip it up. She counter-offered, for no discernible reason except to try to cut ahead with the sort of people a Democrat shouldn't want to be getting ahead with. She's done it on health care. She's done it on education. It's not because these things are unobtainable, or "pie in the sky." Hell with her apparent clout, they'd likely fall right into our hands (isn't she amazing? *dreamy sigh*) but instead she plays the lowballing opportunist, to our disadvantage.
I just can't get behind that, and I really can't understand why anyone else would.