Bullock Texas State History Museum
100% of Americans Want to Be Told the Truth?
RECEIVED Tue., Aug. 8, 2006
Dear Editor,
In his reply to Carl Swanson [“Postmarks,” Aug. 4], Jim Hightower did more damage to himself than Carl ever could have. Though he skillfully rebuted Carl's use of the epithet “wee Jim,” he let stand unchallenged Carl's claim that he (Jim) had deliberately given minimum-wage numbers 14 times higher than those supplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
For goodness sake, Jim, if somebody calls you a liar, at least disagree with them! Say that it was an honest mistake. Conceding the point without argument was the worst thing to do.
In another part of the letter, Carl chose to make an issue out of Jim's use of the word “us” to describe people making a dollar or less over minimum wage. Had Jim said that this was a meaningless quibble over a word that was irrelevant to his overall point, I'd have agreed with him. Instead, he came up with this insanely convoluted argument that the term was correct merely because he empathized with such people. Rationalizations like this call Jim's veracity into question (again). If he tells us (for example) that a million people suffer from Frob's disease, most of us would feel lied to if we later found out that the truth was that one person suffered from it and 999,999 felt sorry for him.
This is still ultimately a quibble, however. I don't really care if Jim said “us” instead of “them.” However, I do care that, when accused of deliberately misrepresenting numbers, he tacitly concedes the point and justifies it by saying that 82% of Americans want a minimum-wage hike anyway. While that may well be true, I would venture to say that closer to 100% of Americans want to be told the truth about it. How many of Jim's numbers can be believed?
In his reply to Carl Swanson [“Postmarks,” Aug. 4], Jim Hightower did more damage to himself than Carl ever could have. Though he skillfully rebuted Carl's use of the epithet “wee Jim,” he let stand unchallenged Carl's claim that he (Jim) had deliberately given minimum-wage numbers 14 times higher than those supplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
For goodness sake, Jim, if somebody calls you a liar, at least disagree with them! Say that it was an honest mistake. Conceding the point without argument was the worst thing to do.
In another part of the letter, Carl chose to make an issue out of Jim's use of the word “us” to describe people making a dollar or less over minimum wage. Had Jim said that this was a meaningless quibble over a word that was irrelevant to his overall point, I'd have agreed with him. Instead, he came up with this insanely convoluted argument that the term was correct merely because he empathized with such people. Rationalizations like this call Jim's veracity into question (again). If he tells us (for example) that a million people suffer from Frob's disease, most of us would feel lied to if we later found out that the truth was that one person suffered from it and 999,999 felt sorry for him.
This is still ultimately a quibble, however. I don't really care if Jim said “us” instead of “them.” However, I do care that, when accused of deliberately misrepresenting numbers, he tacitly concedes the point and justifies it by saying that 82% of Americans want a minimum-wage hike anyway. While that may well be true, I would venture to say that closer to 100% of Americans want to be told the truth about it. How many of Jim's numbers can be believed?
Graeme Cree
[Jim Hightower responds: For goodness sake, Graeme, save some of that breathless outrage for real problems, not statistics. Here’s the trick with the Bush numbers that downplay the low-wage reality facing so many Americans today: The roughly half-million people cited by Mr. Swanson are those making precisely $5.15 an hour. This statistic cleverly ignores those who are paid just a penny more, a nickel more, or even a quarter more. Technically these folks are not at the minimum level, but realistically they are. Even trickier, it ignores the 1.4 million Americans who are paid less than $5.15 an hour. We can argue over statistical niceties, or we can deal with the real life experience of poverty pay in our land of plenty. The crucial point is that 7.3 million Americans are directly dependent on a minimum-wage increase. Raising it to $7.25 an hour would elevate all of these people, and an additional 8.2 million would also see their wages bumped up. A good source for deciphering “official” government numbers to find reality is the Economic Policy Institute: www.epi.org.]
