AFL-CIO joins in coalition with business organizations to oppose enshrining a real living Minimum Wage in the Minnesota Constitution by way of a constitutional amendmemt subject to approval by voters.

The Minnesota AFL-CIO and its partners like the foundation-funded Democratic Party front group, Take Action Minnesota joined in coalition with big-business organizations to oppose inserting the Minimum Wage into the Minnesota State Constitution on the basis that it is the job of legislators, not the people, to vote to make the Minimum Wage a Constitutional Amendment--- why did they take this position while they at the same time all advocate a poverty Minimum Wage for workers?

Obviously these groups all want the Minimum Wage as a political football to opportunistically kick around at election time for their own political selfish interests.

They should have supported this proposal for the Minimum Wage to become part of the Minnesota Constitution as a constitutional amendment but with the stipulation that it begin with a real living wage tied to all cost-of-living factors, that it be routinely upgraded to stay in line with all cost-of-living factors, then indexed for inflation with periodic increases to better the standard-of-living for working people--- in this way, the Minimum Wage would forever be a real living wage in line with all cost-of-living factors while providing for a better standard-of-living for the entire working class.

Think about this:

Why would these groups claiming to represent workers and the poorest workers not support this?

It makes no sense not to get behind a Minimum Wage that would remain a living wage forever part of the State' Constitution.

What right does the Minnesota AFL-CIO and the rest of these DFL front groups have to push for a Minimum Wage that is a poverty wage? They are advocating for $9.50; their new found business coalition partners support even less--- they would like no increase at all.

Think about this:

What sense does it make to advocate one more poverty Minimum Wage and then advocate that this poverty wage should be indexed to inflation--- it makes no sense since a poverty wage indexed to inflation remains the exact same poverty wage in relation to cost-of-living.

A constitutional amendment for the Minimum Wage is the best way to go--- provided the Minimum Wage starts out at a real living wage.

None of those among these groups advocating for a $9.50 Minimum Wage would be willing to live on this kind of poverty wage themselves--- if they say they would then that's exactly what they should be paid.

The fact of the matter is that the Minimum Wage has to be routinely tweaked for both "cost-of-living" and for "inflation." Not every rise in prices is due to inflation and not all rises in the "cost-of-living" are inflation.

Militarism and wars are the main propellents of inflation and monopoly price-fixing is the main reason for most prices rising drastically.

We should have learned by now by seeing these piddly increases in Social Security benefits that the government is running a scam as to how much these benefits increase. We don't want the same scam run on us with the Minimum Wage.

What passes for "debate" according to the standards established by the New York Times: Was Marx Right?

This is what passes for "debate" here in "the world's greatest bastion of democracy."

The New York Times' idea of a debate on Marxism is without a Socialist or Communist voice along with all the hype about the working class that had become a "middle class"--- another myth, a lie, constructed largely based on the lies propagandized and then propagated by the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/30/was-marx-right

And, who does the New York Times choose to "defend" Marxism? None other than Doug Henwood who is an ardent advocate of Wall Street's Keynesian economics hidden behind Marxist verbiage.

Henwood won't even tolerate dialog, let alone debate, on his own FaceBook page.

Marxists should be organizing roundtable discussions, forums and debates--- real debate--- all over this country in every community.

Come on all you Marxists... let's bring our ideas out into the proverbial "public square" in a way where everyone has an opportunity to have their say.

"Was Marx Right?" Definitely.

Is Marxism for you?

Read for free what Marx had to say in his little pamphlet:

"Value, Price and Profit"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/

When FDR's Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, was accused of "implementing the 'Communist Manifesto,'" her response was, "I would rather see these programs helping people than remain ideas hidden on pages of a pamphlet."

Was Marx Right?

Read the "Communist Manifesto" for yourself:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Real Marxist economists got it right while the New York Times was getting it all wrong.

You can read the views of Marxist economists like Edward Boorstein who wrote, "What's Ahead?... the U.S. Economy" or "Super Profits and Crises" by Victor Perlo. Both books are available real cheap on the Internet or for free from your local socialist institution, the public library through inter-library loan.

Let's become engaged in this debate: "Was Marx Right?"

The main reason capitalist ruling classes hate Marx so much, is not because of his solid critique of the capitalist economy; but, because, he understood that the working class was going to need very powerful organizations and parties to challenge these capitalists for power--- and Marx saw revolutionary working class Communist parties becoming the catalyst for doing this.

After decades of proclaiming Marxism defeated, the New York Times now suggests, amid a crumbling capitalist economy, that there is "Room for Debate"... as long as Marxists are not included in this debate.

Doug Henwood is not a Marxist and he is so dishonest he doesn't say so.

Henwood admits that he is a Keynesian; none other then Franklin D. Roosevelt pointed out that John Maynard Keynes was a "kook."

When I challenged Henwood's assertion that Keynesian economics was progressive and was a reactionary economic view held by Wall Street economists, he blocked me from being able to comment on his posts.

Keynesian economists start from the premise that during times of recession and depression the way to get the economy going is by putting some unemployed people to work, but not all unemployed people--- just enough so they get a little money to spend to get the economy going; raise the Minimum Wage just a little bit--- but not too much; again, just to get a few people spending in order to bolster the economy.

Keynesian economists view unemployment and poverty wages as an economic lever used by government to keep all wages down so the Wall Street crowd can reap super-profits.

Marxists start from the premise that everyone needs a job at real living wages because workers without jobs are going to be poor and workers paid poverty wages are going to be poor. Putting people to work at socially useful jobs paying real living wages creates a prosperous life for everyone--- especially, in the first place, the workers whose labor creates all wealth.

Marxists assert there are actually two sources of wealth, and only two: Labor and Mother Nature.

Wall Street capitalists, imperialists, exploit labor and rape Mother Nature in the process... a scheme which promotes war and poverty; no wonder a Wall Street rag like the New York Times will not allow room for a Marxist in their debate on "Was Marx Right?"

The only time the New York Times sees fit to publish the names of Marxists is in their obituary.